9911796707
TMI Blog1938 (1) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Works Ltd., Baroda v. Manmohan Nath Dar, the suit being remanded for trial on the merits. The suit has now been dismissed on the ground that the company in liquidation had not proved that notice was given to the defendant when the call order was made, Edulji Burjorji v. Manekji Sorabji, being followed in this respect. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal from this decision, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he defendant was a shareholder in a company, registered in Baroda, which was thus subject to the Baroda Court, rendered him subject to the jurisdiction of the Baroda Court and Copin v. Adamson was cited as establishing this proposition. This authority however as now held, does not go further than to lay down that where in the Articles of Association it was agreed that the shareholders would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding and decree could not be maintained. The exact effect of the Exchequer case was there defined. These decisions were followed by a Division Bench in Guruswami v. Mahomed Khan where it was said that by the fact of entering into a partnership in a foreign country a person does not bind himself to submit to the jurisdiction of the Courts of that Country, in regard to matters arising in connec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould prove all the facts necessary to establish the liability of the defendant. This was practically said when the case was first before this Bench where it was pointed out that the suit was in the form of an ordinary action. It is stated in the call order that the defendant was served to appear before the Liquidation Court in Baroda, but there is no evidence on the record to establish that a cal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
