9911796707
TMI Blog1929 (2) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. The facts in this case are not in dispute. The appellant Pillani was a partner of a firm of Husseinbhai Pillani Wadia Co. On 3rd April 1923, that firm along with Wadia Woollen Mills, Ltd. granted in respect of a loan a promissory note for two lacs of rupees with interest at 7 3/4 per cent, in favour of the respondent Raja Bahadur Bansilal Motilal. On 12th September 1923, the firm dissolve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found by the Judge of first instance and by the Court of appeal. There can be no question that the plaintiff, being an old customer and no notice having been given to him of the dissolution of the partnership and the retirement of the appellant, the appellant is by English law liable. It would be otiose to quote authority for this, and this was undoubtedly the law of India at least prior to the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns dealing with it, but not on the liabilities of the firm to the persons so dealing. 4. Their Lordships feel that if this were a new statute which was to be construed for the first time, there would be great force in the appellant's argument. But the matter cannot be so approached. As long ago as 1882 the very question was raised before the High Court of Calcutta in the case of Chundee C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e than in India, and it remained unaltered in England when the whole subject was reviewed in the Partnership Act of 1890. Also the Contract Act is not a code. The preamble so states: Whereas it is expedient to define and amend certain parts of the law relating to contract. 5. And Lord Macnaghten in the case of Irrawaaddy Flotilla Co. v. Bugwandas [1891] 18 Cal. 620= 18 I. A. 121= 6 Sar. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
