CPC O. 6 R. 17 – Mere failure to set out even an essential fact does not, by itself constitute a new cause of action.
CPC, 1908, O. 6 R. 17, O. 30 R. 1 - Amendment of plaint – Suit for recovery of money ...
- Log In
- Home
- A
- B
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- H
- I
- J
- L
- M
- N
- O
- P
- R
- S
- S
- Sale of Goods Act
- Sarfaesi
- Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992
- Service Matters
- Service of orders on a government servant
- Sexual Offence
- Special Marriage Act, 1954
- Specific Performance
- Specific Relief Act, 1963
- Stamp Act, 1899
- Stamp duty
- Stay
- Suit for declaration / possession
- Succession Act
- Suit for recovery of Money
- T
- V
- W
- Log In
- Home
- A
- B
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- H
- I
- J
- L
- M
- N
- O
- P
- R
- S
- S
- Sale of Goods Act
- Sarfaesi
- Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992
- Service Matters
- Service of orders on a government servant
- Sexual Offence
- Special Marriage Act, 1954
- Specific Performance
- Specific Relief Act, 1963
- Stamp Act, 1899
- Stamp duty
- Stay
- Suit for declaration / possession
- Succession Act
- Suit for recovery of Money
- T
- V
- W
Partenership firm – Dissolution – Effect of dissolution is not to render the firm non-existent – It continues to exist for all purposes necessary for its winding up – One of these is of course the recovery of moneys due to it by suit or otherwise – CPC O. 30 R. 1
Vivian Bose, J., Said (at p. 315): "It is argued on behalf of the defendants that O. 30, R. 1, ...
CPC O. 30 – Existence of the provisions of O. XXX in the Code does not mean that a plaint filed in the name of a firm doing business outside India is not a suit infact by the partners of that firm individually
A case of a partnership firm where this Court pointed out that Sec. 4 of the Partnership Act uses the ...
