SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(Cal) 341

S.P.RAJKHOWA, SUDHANSHU SEKHAR GANGULY
NARESH CHANDRA DAS – Appellant
Versus
GOPAL CHANDRA DAS – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ASHOK BANERJI, SANGHA MITRA NANDI, SHILA SARKAR

S. S. GANGULY, J.

( 1 ) THE facts leading to the present appeal may be summarised as follows:-admittedly the parties have been running a partnership business in the name and style of Kalpataru Electric and Electronics at Bijpur within the district of North 24-Paraganas. The plaintiff-appellant filed Title Suit No. 534 of 1988 in the Court of 1st Assistant District Judge, Barasat. North 24-Paraganas alleging that another business of the name of 'audio Vision' being run at Kalyani within the district of Nadia was started as the branch of the partnership business at Bijpur with capital supplied from its funds and assets supplied from its stock. The appellant prayed for a declaration in the suit that the business at Kalyani was also partnership business and/ or joint property and business of the parties and consequential reliefs. The contention of the defendant-respondent as per his written statement was that the business at Kalyani was started by him alone with his own money and that it exclusively was his own business separate from the partnership business at Bijpur. He also challenged the maintainability of the suit at Barasat Court since the property in dispute was situated at Kal















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top