Firm Name - Judgment Search Results
Firm of Pratapchand Nopaji Vs. Firm of Kotrike Venkata Setty and Sons ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Dec-12-1974
Reported in: AIR1975SC1223; (1975)2SCC208; [1975]3SCR1
said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful, is void.2. The appellant, Firm of Pratapchand Nopaji, is the plaintiff in all the three suits, but the defendants of each suit, the … been a contravention of Section 8(1)(b) of the Bombay Act inasmuch as only one of the third parties, namely, Shivdanmal Agarwal & Co., whose partner Ganga Ram was examined as P.W.I, was shown to be a member
Firm Girdhar Mal Kapur Chand Vs. Firm Dev Raj Madan Gopal
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Feb-11-1963
Reported in: AIR1963SC1587; [1964]1SCR995
overlooked the fact that difficulties may in certain circumstances arise as regards the recording of alterations in the firm name or its principal place of business (s. 60); noting of closing and opening of branches (s. 61); noting
Firm M.M. Textiles Vs. Firm Raghuram Textiles
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ557
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The defendant-firm is the appellant. The suit by the respondent is for recovery of Rs.22,169.26 with interest. The said sum is composed of the following items:(1) Rs. 15,933.76 towards balance price for textiles...
18-section briefs on any result in this list
Venkateswara Minerals, Firm and anr. Vs. Jugalkishore Chiranjitlal, Fi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Kant14; ILR1985KAR2992; 1985(2)KarLJ319
10 of 1971 by the Civil Judge, Bellary.2. Briefly stated the facts are these :Plaintiff is a registered firm and so too the defendants. They are carrying on business as mineral dealers. On Feb. 1, 1968 the … you as advance payment of the red-oxide and damages already claimed in my notice dt. 20th March, 1968, namely, Rs. 1,200/- and demand that you should pay this money with interest at 12 per cent per annum
Firm Naraindas Pitamchand Vs. Firm Shanker Lal Mohandas and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1974
Reported in: AIR1974All255
Matched in: Parties Firm Naraindas Pitamchand Vs. Firm Shanker Lal Mohandas and ors.
Firm Shri Veer Glass Works Vs. Firm Sonpal Vidya Charan Glass Bangles ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1985
Reported in: AIR1986All2
decisions reported in Laxman Omana Muchandi v. Ramachandra Omana Muchandi AIR 1964 Mys 232. Lalmiya Sulamhusen a Partnership Firm v Shaikh Ahmed Shaikh Dawood : AIR1969Guj166 , Rukmani Ammal v. Subramama Sastrigal AIR 1940 Mad 82, Dhirendra … a contingency and the complications arising on that account that the execution Court is conferred a limited power, namely, to stay execution by sale of the immovable property, on condition to obtain security for such period only
Firm Sohan Lal Kishan Lal Vs. Firm Talwaria Bros.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)212
of a sum of Rs. 4400/- in both the lower courts.2. The plaintiff which is a registered partnership firm, instituted a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs 4400/- against the defendent firm in the
Firm of C. Haji Abdul Shukoor and Co. and ors. Vs. Firm of C. Haji Moh ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-11-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant239; AIR1962Mys239; ILR1961KAR895
full filed subsequently Original Suit No. 9 of 1957. The defendants also are described as a firm by name C. Haji Abdul Shukoor and Co., represented by seven persons described as its partners. The person named Haji … the judgment dated the 30th of October, 1958, in the said suit. (2) The plaintiffs who are a firm of traders had originally filed against the appellant- defendants Original Suit No. 111 of 1956 for recovery of
Firm Birohichand Badri Vishal and ors. Vs. Firm Gangadhar Baijnath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1968
Reported in: AIR1970All43
need only be taken of a few. They are: Basant Kumar v. Baikunthanath, : AIR1932Cal555 ; Ibrahim v. Firm of Ghulam Husain, AIR 1921 Sind 13; Balasubramania Chetty v. Swarnammal, AIR 1915 Mad 811; Upendra Nath Bose … by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter
Firm Mohammad Sana Ullah and Sons Vs. Firm Haji Rahim Bux and Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All49
a final order; but if it does not, it is then, in my opinion, an interlocutory order.'6. In Firm Ramchand Manjimal v. Firm Goverdhandas Vishandas Ratanchand AIR 1920 PC 86 the Judicial Committee held that an order … in India was of opinion that the order it had made 'went to the foot of the suit, namely, the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain it,' and it was for this reason that the order was
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »
Hover bars for counts · drag or use +/− to zoom · click a bar to filter by year
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free