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

1923 Supreme(Cal) 150

PAGE
Seodoyal Khemka – Appellant
Versus
Joharmull Manmull – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Page, J. - The decision of the issues in this case involves the determination of some interesting questions relating to practice. The action was brought by the plaintiffs as three members of the firm of Nathuram Ramkissen against the defendants who are, they allege, the other members of that firm. The action is brought for a declaration that the firm is dissolved, for accounts, enquiries and incidental relief.

2. The facts are as follows : The firm of Nathuram Ramkissen has been in existence for some seventy years, and from time to time has been composed of different members. On the 28th June, 1918, the terms and conditions, under which the partnership was from that date to be regulated and carried on, were set out in a memorandum of agreement, called the Partnership Agreement. On the 18th March, 1918, by a document of that date, the partnership was dissolved, but it was agreed by all parties at the trial that that notice of dissolution was not acted upon at the time, and that the partnership was continued until the 14th July, 1919, when it was, dissolved, except in so far as it related to one of the businesses carried on by the partnership, the Banianship agreement with Gre

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