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

1940 Supreme(Mad) 242

HORWILL
Boppana Rukminamma – Appellant
Versus
Maganti Venkata Ramadas – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Horwill, J.

1. [After dealing with the other points on facts as set out above proceeds.]

2. The third point relates to the application of Act IV of 1938. The lower Court found that as the plaintiff was really a registered society formed under the Societies Registration Act, the debt could not be scaled down. It is contended that this society is not a corporation; but I am unable to see why. A perusal, of the Societies Registration Act makes it clear that a society formed under that Act is a corporation and that it has a separate existence apart from its members and can sue and be sued in its corporate capacity. On all the points therefore this petition fails and is dismissed with the costs of the plaintiff.

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