https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290931 The court found in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the 1st defendant firm had indeed signed the promissory note, confirming it as a joint family firm. The manager of the firm was held liable for the promissory note, despite it being outside the firm's usual business scope. The court also determined that the note was not obtained without consideration or through false representation. The plaintiff was granted a decree against all defendants with costs, including the firm and the second defendant as representatives of the original debtor. en-us Mon, 13 Apr 1908 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Oct 2020 11:22:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290931 The court found in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the 1st defendant firm had indeed signed the promissory note, confirming it as a joint family firm. The manager of the firm was held liable for the promissory note, despite it being outside the firm's usual business scope. The court also determined that the note was not obtained without consideration or through false representation. The plaintiff was granted a decree against all defendants with costs, including the firm and the second defendant as representatives of the original debtor. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 13 Apr 1908 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290931