Skip to content


Nathi Lal Vs. Sri Mal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Civil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1940All230
AppellantNathi Lal
RespondentSri Mal and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....brought a suit against the defendants for contribution of the loss sustained by the parties in a single transaction of purchase of 25 tons of linseed. the learned judge, small cause court, has dismissed the suit as barred by section 69, partnership act, on the ground that there was no registered partnership. it is contended for the applicant that a single transaction does not amount to 'business.' the 'partnership' is defined in the partnership act as:partnership is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all.2. a single transaction or venture does not amount to 'business.' in senaji kapurchand v. pannaji devi chand (1930) 17 air pc 300, their lordships observed:no doubt a single venture, where a single.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Ganga Nath, J.

1. This is an application in revision by the plaintiff against the decree of the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Agra, dismissing a suit. The applicant brought a suit against the defendants for contribution of the loss sustained by the parties in a single transaction of purchase of 25 tons of linseed. The learned Judge, Small Cause Court, has dismissed the suit as barred by Section 69, Partnership Act, on the ground that there was no registered partnership. It is contended for the applicant that a single transaction does not amount to 'business.' The 'partnership' is defined in the Partnership Act as:

Partnership is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all.

2. A single transaction or venture does not amount to 'business.' In Senaji Kapurchand v. Pannaji Devi Chand (1930) 17 AIR PC 300, their Lordships observed:

No doubt a single venture, where a single article or a number of articles on the single contract are purchased and sold, may not amount to a business. But where a number of bales are purchased at one time, sales are to go on, profits are to be realized and those profits are to be divided among the partners, it is not a single venture and amounts to partnership within Section 4.

3. In this case there was a single venture and consequently it does not come under 'business' as mentioned in Section 4, Partnership Act. The suit was, therefore, maintainable. It is therefore ordered that the application be allowed, the order of the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, be set aside and the case be sent back to the lower Court to be re-admitted under its original number and to be disposed of in accordance with law. No order is made as to costs, as the chief defendant (defendant 1) is absent.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //