https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200289 Res judicata did not bar the compensation claim because the earlier suit concerned the existence and dissolution of the partnership and accounts, while the later suit concerned entitlement to compensation after takeover of the undertaking. The compensation could not be claimed exclusively by one respondent where the undertaking had been acquired with funds contributed by partners in agreed proportions and the arrangement was acted on through registered deeds and balance-sheets. Applying restitution principles, the Court held that the contributors or their legal representatives and assignees were entitled to share the compensation in proportion to their respective interests after liabilities. en-us Thu, 11 Apr 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Mar 2018 17:39:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200289 Res judicata did not bar the compensation claim because the earlier suit concerned the existence and dissolution of the partnership and accounts, while the later suit concerned entitlement to compensation after takeover of the undertaking. The compensation could not be claimed exclusively by one respondent where the undertaking had been acquired with funds contributed by partners in agreed proportions and the arrangement was acted on through registered deeds and balance-sheets. Applying restitution principles, the Court held that the contributors or their legal representatives and assignees were entitled to share the compensation in proportion to their respective interests after liabilities. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 11 Apr 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200289