Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act 1932 section 17 rights and duties of partners Year: 1938 Page 1 of about 3 results (0.073 seconds)

Jan 12 1938 (PC)

Moolji Sicka in Re [No. 2].

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jan-12-1938

Reported in : [1938]6ITR234(Cal)

..... firm' would suggest a change in its partners but not a change in the proportion in which the partners divide the profit. some help is obtained from the provisions of the partnership act, 1932. section 17(a) of that act says;-'subject to contract between the partners where a change occurs in the constitution of a firm, the mutual rights and duties of the partners in the re-constituted firm remain the ..... in the personnel of the firm that, is a change in the persons who are partners in the my opinion there was no change in the constitution of the firm on december 17th, 1931 within the meaning of section 26(1) of the indian income-tax act. consequently section 26(1) has no application to this particular case. the result is that the ..... during the accounting year. if section 26(1) applies then the assessee would be chargeable to tax on the basis of ..... the deed referred to was in operation during the year of assessment. the assessment was made on december 2nd, 1932.the question is whether in the facts and circumstances stated and on the true construction of section 26(1) of the indian income-tax act the assessee should be chargeable to tax on the basis of his share of the profits which he had .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 25 1938 (PC)

Siddavarupu Ramalinga Reddy Vs. Rachaputi Ramalingam Setty and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-25-1938

Reported in : AIR1938Mad929; (1938)2MLJ790

..... featherstonhaugh v. fenwick (1810) 17 ves. jun. 298 : 34 e.r. 115 and clegg v. fishwick (1849) 1 mac. & g. 294 : 41 e.r. 1278, but as pointed out in nagendrabala dasi v. dinanath mahish the circumstance of concealment is material as leading to the inference that the partner was 'taking advantage' of his position. even the indian partnership act of 1932 has not enacted or ..... subject to accounting to his co-owner for his share of the profits made by the use of the common property see watson and company v. ramchand dutt and section 37 of the partnership act). we accordingly hold that the obstruction caused by the 1st defendant was unlawful and entitled the plaintiff to claim damages.36. as regards the quantum of damages, the ..... the position under the k english authorities. 'the principle of keech v. sandford,' he observed:depends partly on the nature of leasehold property and partly on some fiduciary relationship or duty existing on the part of the person whom it is sought to declare a trustee towards the persons who seek to have the trust declared.26. as regards the 'personal ..... it, derived from and based upon their ownership of the original leaseand it is added in the foot-note that 'this hope or expectation was sometimes described as a tenant-right' {see the distinction between college leases and private leases adverted to by warrington, j., in bevan v. webb (1905) 1 ch. 620 . the distinction made in the english cases see .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 17 1938 (PC)

Revappa Nandappa Hattarki Vs. Babu Sidappa Erandole

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-17-1938

Reported in : AIR1939Bom61; (1938)40BOMLR1275

..... was not maintainable, having regard to section 69 of the indian partnership act. the indian partnership act came into operation on october 1, 1932, but by virtue of section 1, sub-section (3), section 69 of the act: only came into force on october 1, 1933, that is two days before this suit was filed. section 69, sub-section (2), provides that :-no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted ..... . so that two judges out of three took the same view of section 74 as i do, and the actual decision is in that sense.12. for the reasons which i have given, i am of opinion that this suit is not barred by section 69 of the indian partnership act. we must, therefore, allow the appeal with costs, and remand the case to the ..... in any court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the register of firms as partners in the firm.4. now ..... the plaintiffs at the time when the suit was filed were an unregistered firm. they have been registered since, but if section 69 stood alone, there can be no doubt that the plaintiffs were not entitled to institute the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 1938 (PC)

Ct. Al. Vr. Alagappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. the Bank of Chettinad, Ltd. ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-06-1938

Reported in : AIR1939Mad6; (1938)2MLJ944

..... the respondents. indeed, it cannot be reconciled with the positive insistence made by the legislature in section 5 of the indian partnership act of 1932 that the relationship of partners arises from contract and not from status. the next paragraph of that section, which is merely a declaration of the pre-existing law, provides in express terms that the ..... defendants 1 and 2 the second defendant's liability for the existing debts should become different or that the first defendant should in carrying out the duties imposed upon him by the award be empowered to throw a personal liability on the second defendant. if one is to rely on the terms ..... resulting from that doctrine, it does not seem to us fair or useful to insist that no junior member of a joint hindu family has any right to take any interest in the affairs of the family trade. the present case itself illustrates the necessity and propriety of the junior member concerning ..... settled wholly between somasundara and the first defendant himself, a large remission having been made by the first defendant, without any reference to the second defendant.17. the above remarks also apply to the direction in the opening part of ex. z a letter written by the second defendant to the agent ..... chetti : (1918)35mlj473 , joharmal ladhooram v. chetram harisingh i.l.r.(1914) 39 bom. 715 shiv charan das v. hari ram (1935) i.l.r. 17 lah. 395 sheo ram v. luta ram a.i.r. 1937 lah. 6 nachiappa v. raman a.i.r. 1935 rang. 227 bishambhar nath v. fateh lal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 01 1938 (PC)

T. Pr. Sm. Somasundaram Chettiar Vs. V. Rm. Sevugan Chettiar and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-01-1938

Reported in : AIR1940Mad505

..... out of the profits, if any, of the business that the capital contributing partner could be expected to take his stipulated interest. this seems to be the principle adopted by the indian legislature in section 13(c) of the indian partnership act and by parliament in section 24, clause 4 of the english partnership act. the law may recognise an exception to this rule where the contract expressly provides ..... ramanatha he would have been entitled to interest only if and when profits had been made and in any event only up to the date of the dissolution of the partnership and that the lower court was not justified in crediting the respondents with interest on this capital amount throughout the accounting period. this question has not been dealt with in ..... is an appeal by defendant 1 against the final decree in a suit for the taking of the accounts of a partnership business carried on in mandalay under the v. b.m. vilasam in which the parties to the suit were partners. the plaintiff and defendant 2 are the sons of one ramanathan chetti and both of them together are entitled to ..... with the question on its merits now. mr. krishnaswami iyer seems to us to be right in both his contentions on this question of interest. as observed in lindley on partnership, at p. 465 of edn. 10, the right to interest on capital contributed by one of the partners even when there is a stipulation for payment of such interest ordinarily ceases at the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 1938 (PC)

S. Girdharilal Son and Co. Vs. B. Kappini Gowder and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-03-1938

Reported in : AIR1938Mad688; (1938)2MLJ44

..... would be sufficient pressure to deprive unregistered partners of the right of suit. though i do not wish to base any conclusion upon the language of a marginal note, it is noteworthy that in section 8 of the english act corresponding to section 69 of the indian partnership act, the marginal note is 'disability of persons in default'. in the indian companies act, the legislature has provided that unregistered ..... several decisions referred to in their judgments.2. the relevant facts and dates are: the promissory note sued on was executed on 12th march, 1931, the partnership act except section 69 came into force on 1st october, 1932, section 69 came into force on 1st october, 1933, and this suit was filed in august, 1934. on these facts, the question arises, whether the plaintiffs ..... into force. i do not however express any opinion upon this question because the right of action in the present case accrued even before 1st october, 1932, when the act came into force. the material clause of section 74 is sub-clause (b) which [omitting the unnecessary words and importing what is necessary from sub-clause (a)] will read as follows:nothing in ..... and (c) reference is made to 'the commencement of this act' and the learned counsel for the respondents rightly pointed out that it may not be easy to say when dealing with an objection under section 69, whether the above words should be held to refer to 1st october, 1932, when the act except section 69 came into force or to 1st october, 1933, when .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 1938 (PC)

Nibaran Chandra Shaha Vs. Lalit Mohan Brindaban Shaha

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Mar-09-1938

Reported in : AIR1939Cal187

..... act, and that section 4(2) of the said act only prevents the projection of a company, association or partnership with a number of members exceeding twenty and does not render illegal, by reason of nonregistration, a company, association or partnership, which had already been formed before the act came into force. we may state at once that if the plaintiffs be regarded as partners of a partnership ..... the doctrine thatbecause a society is projected by less than 20 people originally and subsequently grows to more than 20, it is outside the act,meaning the english act of 1862, section 4 of which corresponds to section 4, indian companies act, 1913. we are however of opinion that the first ground on which the learned subordinate judge has based his decision on this point is ..... plaintiffs by his letter of that date (ex. 44, of the paper-book, part 2, p. 218), and they were directed to go to the civil court to establish their rights. heera lal had already denied the plaintiffs' title and asserted his own title. the suit which was instituted on 29th august 1931 was not accordingly premature. regarding the bar of ..... of this line of cases : firm of senaji kapurchand v. firm of pannaji devichand (1930) 17 a.i.r. p.c. 300. some change has been effected by the amendment of the companies act in 1936, by the introduction of the last part of sub-section (3) of section 4, but in the view we take of the facts, it is not necessary to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 07 1938 (PC)

Menahem Mesha Menahem Messa Vs. Moses BunIn Menahem Messa

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-07-1938

Reported in : AIR1938Bom394; (1938)40BOMLR571

..... court in this case was not competent to pass a judgment in rem in relation to a deceased person who had died domiciled in aden, section 41 of the indian evidence act does not help the respondents. it is not disputed by the appellants that the judgment of the alexandrian court is binding upon them, whether or ..... which is in the possession of the donor. the interest which the testator had in this property was in his capacity as a partner in a subsisting partnership. it seems to have been a partnership at will on the terms of a deed which had come to an end in 1916, but, at any rate, it was ..... the evidence of tob is that it was not in the safe, but was in an almirah or cupboard, which was in the partnership office and of which the deceased as senior partner generally had the key, but that when he went away he left the key with his brother judah, and sometimes told the witness ..... of the court pronouncing the judgment in rem. see dicey's conflict of laws, 5th edn., pages 418-419 over such property the foreign court would have a rightful jurisdiction, ' founded on the actual or constructive possession of the subject-matter (res).'3. there is also a further limitation to the effect of a judgment: ..... of the testator.' but on a consideration of the texts i find that the precept is not enjoined on the son as a legal duty ; it is a matter of persuasion. a legal duty would be a binding obligation, but one text distinctly says that the son must apply the precept ' leniently', which obviously he could .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 06 1938 (PC)

Hakmaji Meghaji Vs. Punnaji Devichand

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-06-1938

Reported in : AIR1938Bom453; (1938)40BOMLR995

..... the firm of aslaji sonmal both died more than three years before the suit.5. under section 253 of the indian contract act, which contains the law applicable to this case, a partnership is dissolved by the death of any partner in the absence of any contract to the contrary. it is an admitted fact that ..... the suit. moreover, we are not satisfied that it is a correct statement of the legal position. no doubt according to the definition in section 239 of the indian contract act ' partnership ' is the relation which subsists between persons who have agreed to combine their property, labour or skill in some business, and to share ..... joharmul i.l.r. (1923) cal. 549 manmull1 mr. justice page says (p. 558) :-a firm as such cannot be a member of a partnership. a partnership under section 239 is a relationship which subsists between persons; but a firm is not a person ; it is not an entity ; it is merely a collective ..... the allahabad high court has followed these cases, although with a certain amount of hesitation, in in the matter of jai dayal madan gopal i.l.r. (1932) all. 846. we understand that the same view of the law has been taken in madras also, and i may mention ghishulal gamshilal v. gambhirmal pandya ..... not prepared to differ from this consensus of authority, and hold that the trial judge was right in his view that all the members of the seven constituent firms must be taken to have been individual partners in the main firm. it follows from that that the main firm would be dissolved on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 28 1938 (PC)

Chockalingam Chettiar Vs. Meyappa Chettiar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-28-1938

Reported in : AIR1939Mad228; (1938)2MLJ287

..... or subsists and it is to be remembered in this connection that even after dissolution of partnership the rights and obligations of the partners continue in all things necessary for winding up the business of the partnership (section 263, indian contract act) no separate action for contribution will lie and the right to contribution can be enforced only as part of a general suit for accounts of the ..... palaniyappa chetty and satisfaction of the decree was entered up on 12th july, 1923. as already stated, in the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiffs claim rs. 17,358 against the 3rd defendant alone or in the alternative, contribution from the defendants of their 14/20th share of the decree debt.7. the plaintiffs' case is that the ..... to cases where the action for contribution is brought by a partner as such against his co-partner as such. the rule of prohibition in such actions is necessitated by the peculiar obligations, rights and duties existing as between partners inter se which attract the maxim 'frustra peteret quod mox restiturus esset.' where the partnership relation no longer exists, and where there is no likelihood of .....

Tag this Judgment!

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