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

1944 Supreme(Mad) 3

BYERS
Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. by Managing Agents, K. R. M. T. T. Thiyagaraja Chettiar and Co. – Appellant
Versus
C. Swaminatha Mudaliar and Bros. by Partners S. Arokiaswami Mudaliar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Byers, J.

1. The learned Subordinate Judge has overlooked the mandatory provisions of Section 69 (2), Partnership Act. The suit was brought by the son of a deceased partner, and it is now argued that the registration of the fathers name holds good for the son, as if the relationship were that of a coparcenary. Section 63 (1) of the Act provides for the correction of the register when changes occur in the constitution of a registered firm; as the plaintiff has not had his name included in the register, Section 69 (2) is a bar. The suit is not maintainable and it is ordered to be dismissed with costs throughout.

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