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

2002 Supreme(Mad) 396

A.KULASEKARAN
S. Prakashchand – Appellant
Versus
Sha Harakchand Misrimulland – Respondent


Advocates:
S. Raghavan, for Appellant; G. Ashokapathy, for Respondents.

ORDER :- The defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of amount in O. S. No. 7968 of 1986 before the VII Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, which was dismissed. As against the same the plaintiffs have filed an appeal in A.S. No. 155 of 1989 before the VIII Additional City Civil Judge, Madras which was allowed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court this second appeal has been filed.

2. At the time of admission of this second appeal, the below mentioned substantial questions of law are framed :-

(i) Whether the incorporation of the names of some of the partners of the plaintiffs firm in the Register of Firms after the institution of the suit, when the names did not find a place at the time of institution of the suit, could cure the defect and save it from dismissal under Section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1952 as amended ?

(ii) Whether the Court below is not bound by the unreported judgment of this Honourable Court dated 27-9-1983 in C.S. Nos. 20 and 21 of 1982 and the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1989 SC 1769

(iii) Whether the Court below was right in applying the ratio reported in (1989) I Mad LW W



















































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