JASRAJ INDER SINGH versus HEM RAJ MULTAN CHAND

JASRAJ INDER SINGH versus HEM RAJ MULTAN CHAND

Where two shops are owned by the same person and parties have interconnected dealings in both, accounts should, in law and equity, be rendered on a composite basis with sums properly set off, irrespective of location. A remand order by the High Court does not fetter the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to do complete justice and examine the full merits upon appeal, and does not operate as res judicata.

Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Jasraj Inder Singh; Respondent/defendant: Hem Raj Multan Chand
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 February 1977
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court (nagpur Bench) Judgment and Decree Dated 10th/11th August 1965 in First Appeal Nos. 120 and 123 of 1965
Outcome
Appeal allowed; trial court's judgment restored.
Legal Topics
Partnership Accounting, Set Off, Jurisdiction After Remand, Procedural Law
Civil Law Partnership Accounting Set Off Jurisdiction After Remand Procedural Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jasraj Inder Singh

Appellant/plaintiff

Hem Raj Multan Chand

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court (nagpur Bench) Judgment and Decree Dated 10th/11th August 1965 in First Appeal Nos. 120 and 123 of 1965

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether set-off of mutual accounts from two shops at different places but owned by the same person is permissible in law and equity?
  2. 2 Whether the trial court was bound by the terms of the High Court’s remand order?
  3. 3 Whether a remand order operates as res judicata precluding reconsideration at a later appellate stage?

Ratio Decidendi

Where two shops are owned by the same person and parties have interconnected dealings in both, accounts should, in law and equity, be rendered on a composite basis with sums properly set off, irrespective of location. A remand order by the High Court does not fetter the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to do complete justice and examine the full merits upon appeal, and does not operate as res judicata.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; trial court's judgment restored.

Orders

  • Decree in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 7,464/4/-.
  • No costs awarded to plaintiff for the decreed amount; costs allowed to defendant to the extent of Rs. 4,535/12/-.