https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302919 The appellate court discharged the decree against Padhye, finding he was not liable as a partner or owner of the second defendant firm. However, the decree against the first defendant Athale was affirmed as he was personally liable on the hundis. The court held that the hundis did not bind the alleged partnership or owner, leading to the failure of the plaintiffs' case against Padhye. The request to amend the plaint for an alternative claim was denied due to lateness and potential unjustness. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs, except for special costs as directed by the learned Judge. en-us Wed, 15 Feb 1928 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Jun 2022 18:19:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302919 The appellate court discharged the decree against Padhye, finding he was not liable as a partner or owner of the second defendant firm. However, the decree against the first defendant Athale was affirmed as he was personally liable on the hundis. The court held that the hundis did not bind the alleged partnership or owner, leading to the failure of the plaintiffs' case against Padhye. The request to amend the plaint for an alternative claim was denied due to lateness and potential unjustness. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs, except for special costs as directed by the learned Judge. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 15 Feb 1928 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302919