Wigmore puts the proposition in the following manner : But a disposition of a man may be made up of many traits, some good and some bad, and only evidence in regard to a particular trait with which the witness is familiar would be of some use. Fresh disputes however, arose between the parties and by a formal agreement dated May 11, 1953, they set out those disputes between themselves and agreed to refer the same to the sole aribitration of Dr. The counter-claim was also dismissed on the ground that it did not lie and the prayer of the respondents to treat the counter-claim as a plaint in a cross-suit was also rejected, the respondents being asked to seek their relief by filing a fresh suit.
Secretary of State for India (1), the section clearly specifies four different grounds of objection which can be the subject-matter of an enquiry in reference proceedings. The appellant filed a suit for the enforcement of an agreement to the effect that a partnership between himself and one Bai Itcha since deceased had been dissolved and that the partners had arrived at a specific amount to be paid by the appellant in full satisfaction of the share of Bai Itcha Civil Lawyers in Chandigarh the partnership.
The parties were governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu law. The objections which the Court can consider on a reference made to it under s. The 1st appellant is the wife of the 2nd appellant. Held further that it is well settled that a balance sheet cannot be taken as proof of a claim as to what portion of reserves has actually been used as working capital and that the utilization of a portion of reserves as working capital has to be proved by the employer by evidence on affidavit or otherwise after giving opportunity to the workmen to contest the correctness of such evidence by cross-examination.
The respondents appealed against the order of the trial court but their appeal was dismissed. As was observed by the Privy Council Civil Lawyers in Chandigarh Pramatha Nath Mullick v. , one ninth each, with however the two widows being allotted their respective shares for their life as for their maintenance. In the present case no acceptable proof has been given and the method of proof was not proper. There was also a provision that in regard to a glass factory the 2nd appellant was to have a 5 annas share, the rest of the member dividing the balance of the II annas 414 (presumably because the 1st appellant’s money went Civil Lawyers in Chandigarh india for the initial capital for starting the concern) till certain specified contingencies occurred.
The 5th respondent is the widow of a deceased brother who died in 1933 while the 8th respondent is the wife of the 2nd respondent. 18 may be either in respect of the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, and the apportionment of the compensation among different persons. ‘ It -is thus clear that the scope of the enquiry under s. The respondents who were the heirs of Bai Itcha, not only denied the Chandigarh Top Civil Lawyers allegations in the plaint but also made a counter-claim in the written statement for the rendition of account against the appellant and paid court fee on the counter-claim as on a plaint.
18 (1) is specifically indicated by the section itself. At a later stage, the respondents made a prayer to treat the counterclaim as a plaint in a cross-suit, The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that appellant had failed to prove the 568 agreement. Hemendra Nath left considerable properties and on his death disputes arose between his several heirs but an agreement dated January 31, 1933 these were settled By then one of the sons the husband of the 5th respondent had died leaving a widow (the 5th respondent) and these viz.
One Hemendra Nath Sen, father of the second appellant, died intestate in 1929 leaving his widow Premtarangini Debi and 8 sons. Respondents 1,2,3, 4, 6 and 7 are the brothers of the 2nd appellant. , the widow, the 7 sons and the widowed daughter-in-law entered into this agreement by which the properties left by the deceased were partitioned among them Broadly stated, the agreement specified the shares of the 9 parties thereto as Revenue Lawyers in High Court Chandigarh equal i. In dealing with the’ question about the amount of Compensation, the Court may have to take into account the matters specified in s.
However, the High Court accepted their appeal and set aside the dismissal of the counter-claim and remanded the case to the trial court with a direction that the counterclaim be treated as a plaint in the cross-suit and the reply of the plaintiff to the counter-claim be treated as a written statement to the cross-suit and the cross-suit be tried and disposed of in accordance with law. 390 Section 18 (1) provides that any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector,require that the matter be referred by the Collector or the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.