<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1963 (1) TMI 60 - Madras High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272859</link>
    <description>A partnership formed to purchase and run a lorry under a permit standing in one partner&#039;s name was held to be illegal because the vehicle was operated contrary to the Motor Vehicles Act and without the required transfer approval. A promissory note arising from settlement of that partnership&#039;s accounts was therefore unenforceable, as a contract forbidden by statute or performable only illegally cannot be enforced. The plaintiff was also denied equitable recovery of the amount advanced, since the funds had been absorbed into the illegal venture and no equitable basis was shown. The sureties were likewise not liable because a surety&#039;s obligation cannot survive where the principal debt is itself unenforceable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2018 17:05:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=521170" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (1) TMI 60 - Madras High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272859</link>
      <description>A partnership formed to purchase and run a lorry under a permit standing in one partner&#039;s name was held to be illegal because the vehicle was operated contrary to the Motor Vehicles Act and without the required transfer approval. A promissory note arising from settlement of that partnership&#039;s accounts was therefore unenforceable, as a contract forbidden by statute or performable only illegally cannot be enforced. The plaintiff was also denied equitable recovery of the amount advanced, since the funds had been absorbed into the illegal venture and no equitable basis was shown. The sureties were likewise not liable because a surety&#039;s obligation cannot survive where the principal debt is itself unenforceable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272859</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>