Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G.RADHA RANI
Y.S.Mohan Rao – Appellant
Versus
Satya Sai Chemicals And Feed – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G. RADHA RANI, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant - defendant No.2 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.12.2001 passed in O.S.No.952 of 1993 by the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. The respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and the respondent No.2 is the defendant No.1. The appeal was dismissed for default against respondent No.2 - defendant No.1 on 21.10.2011.
3. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court.
4. The respondent No.1 - plaintiff initially filed the suit against the defendant No.2 alone for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,22,769/- under Order XXXVII Rule 2 of CPC which contemplates summary procedure. Subsequently he impleaded the respondent No.2 - defendant No.1 as per the orders in I.A.No.1799 of 2000 dated 15.02.2001.
5. The plaintiff contended that the plaintiff was a registered firm carrying on business of supplying poultry feed under the name and style of M/s.Sri Satya Sai Chemicals and Feeds represented by its proprietor Sri K.V.S.S.Prasad Rao and the defendant was a company represented by Sri Y.Mohan Rao doing business of poultry under the name and style of M/s.Mosaic Farms Private Limited. T
Directors can be held personally liable for fraudulent trading under Section 540 of the Companies Act 2016 when they knowingly incur debts without the prospect of payment, constituting intent to defr....
Directors can be held personally liable for a company's debts under Section 540 of the Companies Act 2016 when engaged in fraudulent trading, justifying the lifting of the corporate veil.
The rejection of a plaint based on misjoinder of parties and causes of action is erroneous, and disputed questions cannot be decided at the time of considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of....
The non-registration of a partnership firm as required under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 renders the suits filed by the unregistered firm non est in law, and subsequent registra....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is not maintainable and is inherently defective and no....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
