<?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>1956 (2) TMI 68 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273003</link>
    <description>A reconstituted partnership may be bound by an earlier firm debt where the evidence shows assumption of liability by the new firm and the creditor&#039;s assent to treat the debt as continuing against it. The article also notes that part-payments and acknowledgments made in the course of firm business can extend limitation against all partners, including an incoming partner who acted as a partner by conduct and correspondence. The plaintiff&#039;s deposit and endorsements were treated as proved on the documentary and oral record, and the territorial jurisdiction of the Devakottai Sub-Court was upheld. The decree below was affirmed with a modification in the mode of recovery.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 15:09:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=522035" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (2) TMI 68 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273003</link>
      <description>A reconstituted partnership may be bound by an earlier firm debt where the evidence shows assumption of liability by the new firm and the creditor&#039;s assent to treat the debt as continuing against it. The article also notes that part-payments and acknowledgments made in the course of firm business can extend limitation against all partners, including an incoming partner who acted as a partner by conduct and correspondence. The plaintiff&#039;s deposit and endorsements were treated as proved on the documentary and oral record, and the territorial jurisdiction of the Devakottai Sub-Court was upheld. The decree below was affirmed with a modification in the mode of recovery.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273003</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>