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

1959 Supreme(MP) 130

A.H.KHAN, H.R.KRISHNAN
D. R. PATEL – Appellant
Versus
A. S. DIMELLOW – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.M.Arora, Shahasrabuddhe

H. R. KRISHNAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit is allowed in part. Plaintiff's prayer is that the decree now passed against defendant No. 1 in the capacity of Managing Director should be converted into one against him personally, on the ground, that he was the promoter and continued to be personally liable as his liability for the plaintiff's claim was not taken over by the company after it was constituted, and has also a prayer in regard to costs, as it was, the plaintiff claimed Rs. 45,000/- but actually got a decree for Rs. 22,614/ -. The Court ordered costs and pleader's fee for each party in proportion to its success; as each won about half, the costs nearly, but not quite, cancelled mutually. The plaintiff-appellant cannot therefore make any grievance on this ground.

( 2 ) THERE is no prayer by the plaintiff in respect of the disallowed portion of his claim, nor is there any cross appeal or cross objection by the defendant-respondent in regard to the portion of the claim that has been actually allowed. This is now impossible for him to challenge the merits of the trial Court's decision. The controversy has narrowed down to whether a promoter is persona












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