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

1961 Supreme(Raj) 213

DAVE, RANAWAT, SARJOO PROSAD
Haridas – Appellant
Versus
Banshidhar – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Madhusudan Narain, for Haridas; Mag Raj, for Banshidhar

DAVE, J.—This case comes on reference made by learned Judges of this Court constituting a division bench.

2. The facts giving rise to it are that Shri Banshidhar and Mannalal plaintiffs filed a suit in the court of the Civil Judge, Udaipur on 9th September, 1948, for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts against two defendants, namely, Haridas and Bhanwarlal The plaintiffs case was that the defendants were owners of a firm called "Bhatia-Saree-Stores" and that both of them, together with one Kishanlal Paliwal of Nathdwara, were also trading in tobacco under the) name and style of Rajasthan Tambkhu (Tobacco) Manufacturing Company. On 5th January, 1948, both the plaintiffs and the two defendants entered into a part-nership business and the name of this firm was kept as Rajasthan Tambakhu Company. The share of each one of the plaintiffs was five annas in a rupee while the share of the defendants was jointly five annals in a rupee. A branch of this firm was also started in the name of Banshidhar Mannalal. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendants had committed breaches of the various terms of their agreement. The plaintiffs drew up in the plaint almost a catalo













































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