Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act 1932 section 17 rights and duties of partners Year: 1942 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.068 seconds)

Dec 08 1942 (PC)

Bhagwanji Morarji Goculdas Vs. the Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-08-1942

Reported in : (1943)45BOMLR691

..... that having regard to section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable. it is common ground that the partnership firm of kotibhaskar, amin & co. was not registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act. it is admitted by the first defendant company that this partnership was dissolved before the suit was filed. therefore the suit is by the partners of a dissolved firm ..... of property, but they are not the only ones.4. i must construe the word 'property' as used in sub-section (3) of section 69 of the indian partnership act in its widest sense, and there is no doubt that in that widest sense 'property' means all legal rights which a person can own. if a chose in action or an actionable claim is a legal ..... plaintiff in filing this suit to recover damages for breach of a contract is exercising his right to realise the property of the dissolved firm of which he alleges he was a partner, and although that firm was not registered, he is not debarred from maintaining the suit under section 69 of the indian partnership act.7. i, therefore, answer issue no. 1 in the affirmative.

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 17 1942 (PC)

Ramchandra Lalbhai Vs. Chinubhai Lalbhai

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-17-1942

Reported in : (1943)45BOMLR1075

..... consent of the lal mills to the arrangement. this is not a case of an agreement of partnership where nothing has been done.14. (m.c. setalvad. see section 19 of the indian partnership act, 1932. the alleged partnership is not registered and the present suit is not maintainable. moreover, partnership is not pleaded.)15. there is no privity between the defendant and the lal mills. the defendant ..... decree is passed as prayed for, the same may be rendered useless if the lal mills refuse to employ the plaintiffs as agents.9. the case of exclusion of a partner from a subsisting partnership is entirely different. there is a right to partnership assets. here the agency itself is sought to be created by exhibit n. an agreement to enter into a ..... business of buying raw material, creating the manufactured articles, and selling the outcome of the mill is entrusted, together with the largest possible powers for the efficient discharge of those duties.therefore it is not merely that the relations between a mill company and its managing agent are of a confidential character, but the relations inter se the co-agents themselves ..... single instance has been pointed out of difference of opinion between them. under exhibit n the defendant agrees to give to the plaintiffs the same right of management as he had. the defendant admitted and acknowledged existing rights.17. in their plaint the plaintiffs have only set out facts. no legal status arising from the pleadings is necessary to be stated. it may .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 1942 (PC)

Mohanlal Vs. Shyamlal.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-18-1942

Reported in : [1942]10ITR219(All)

..... definition of these expression 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' we have to look not to the indian parnership act but to the indian contract act, it is only by the amending act of 1939 that it has been made clear that the terms 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' will have the same meanings respectively as in the indian partnership act of 1932.section 239 of the indian contract act was as follows :-' partnership is the relation which subsists between ..... succeed. the terms 'firm' and 'partnership' as not defined in the income-tax act, but in section 2 (6a) it is said 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' have have the same meanings respectively as in the indian contract act, 1872. although chapter xi of the indian contract act of 1872 was repealed by the indian partnership act of 1932, but the words in section 2 (6a0 of the indian income-tax act were not latered, and it ..... sons of shyam lal, and it is impossible to hold that there was a firm constituted under an instrument of partnership which made the application for registration before the income-tax officer. the income-tax officer and the appellate authorities were, therefore, right in rejecting the application for registration. we, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative.the assessee .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 08 1942 (PC)

Minor Periakaruppan by Mother and Guardian, Rakkayee Ammal Vs. T. S. S ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-08-1942

Reported in : AIR1943Mad190; (1942)2MLJ563

..... conclusion that suppayya ambalam, father of 1st defendant, was a partner with rama-swami pillai in p. rm. firm'; but in paragraph 45 he says, 'therefore on the facts proved in this case suppayya ambalam must be held liable on the principle of holding out laid down in section 2'8 of the indian partnership act.' in view, however, of the definite language used in ..... paragraph 43, it would seem that the district munsiff was of the opinion that the 1st defendant's father's estate would be liable both on the ground that the father was a partner and on the principle of holding himself ..... out as a partner.3. the second contention raised ..... to the court to pass decrees in favour of the plaintiffs on the footing of a holding out by the petitioner's father, which would, make him liable under section 28 of the partnership act for the sums 6f money advanced. the suits were brought on the facts as they seemed to the plaintiffs, who deduced their legal relationship from the conduct of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 1942 (PC)

Goverdhandoss Tokersey Vs. M. Abdul Rahiman and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-03-1942

Reported in : AIR1942Mad634; (1942)2MLJ636

..... on behalf of'' or in other words, for the benefit of the firm of goverdandoss tokersey, it falls within the mischief of section 69 (2) of the indian partnership act (act ix of 1932) and is liable to be dismissed on that ground. we have already referred to the fact that the plea advanced on behalf of ..... in his own name without joining ms partners as plaintiffs in the action. the suit could therefore be and was properly instituted by the plaintiff and the defendant's objection that the present suit falls within the mischief of section 69 (2) of the indian partnership act is therefore overruled.14. we must now ..... learned counsel for the respondents, that the 1st defendant could not enter into a transaction in which his personal interest was in conflict with his duty towards the 2nd defendant, his principal and the transaction contained in ex. j could not therefore be binding on him. this contention is based on ..... the 1st defendant. it was in regard to these sandalwood trees that he had entered into an agreement with the 3rd defendant under ex. j.17. learned counsel for the appellant argued the case in this court against the 2nd defendant both on the basis and independently of this power of ..... individual capacity and as he had no right to the suit amount, he was incompetent to file it. it was also alleged in paragraph 3 of the additional written statement that the firm 'goverdandoss tokersey' had not been registered as required under the partnership act at or before the presentation of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 24 1942 (PC)

Pannaji Devichand Vs. Lakkaji Dolaji

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-24-1942

Reported in : AIR1943Bom156; (1943)45BOMLR181

..... be executed against a partner appearing in the suit, it could not be executed against his ..... decree was passed and had admitted that he was a partner. it was, however, held that rateable distribution could not be allowed in view of the provisions of section 49 of the indian partnership act, which are similar to those of section 262 of the indian contract act. the learned judges there interpreted the provisions of that section as meaning that although a decree against a firm could ..... facts. this section occurs in the chapter relating to the dissolution of a firm, and it says that where there are joint debts due from the firm, and also separate debts due from any partner, the property of the firm shall be applied in ..... property was not that particular partner's property, nor was the partner's property the firm's, and that the partner's property cannot be made a hotchpot out of which rateable distribution could be made to satisfy both the decrees. with great respect to the learned judges, it is difficult to see how section 49 of the indian partnership act could apply to those .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 04 1942 (PC)

Sir Sundar Singh Majithia Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-04-1942

Reported in : (1943)45BOMLR9

..... assessees from a judgment of the high court at allahabad on a reference made under sub-section (2) of section 66 of the indian income-tax act, 1922. the question referred arises out of an assessment made for the year 1932-3 on the profits of a business carried on under the style of 'the saraiyar ..... to himself. and whereas the second, third, fourth and fifth parties having been admitted and accepted as partners by the first party all the parties to this deed have already entered into a partnership to work the aforesaid sugar and oil manufacturing machinery and to carry on the business of manufacturing sugar and ..... could not be a partition because the shares were not in accordance with the parties' legal rights. indeed this argument was not maintained before the high court, but an argument based on section 25a of the act was put forward instead on the commissioner's behalf. the high court accepted this new contention ..... business were not legally effective, e.g. for want of a registered instrument of transfer, the negative answer would in their lordships' view be right since the wife and sons could not compel the father to perfect a voluntary transfer. but on the assumption that the factory land and buildings were ..... by way of pretence in order to escape liability for tax and without intention that its provisions should in truth have effect as defining the rights of the parties as between themselves. to decide that an instrument is: in this sense not genuine is to come to a finding of fact .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 1942 (PC)

Satish Chandra Hui and ors. Vs. Sudhir Krishna Ghosh and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-27-1942

Reported in : AIR1942Cal429

..... respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent legislative list' qualify only the words 'an existing indian law' in section 107(1), government of india act, 1935. remembering the definitions of 'provincial law' and 'existing indian law' as given in section 311 of the act, section 107(1) may be paraphrased in the line indicated by sulaiman j. thus:if any provision of the ..... and powers of all courts except the federal court, with respect to any of the matters in this list.13. item 10 of that list is given thug:contracts, including partnership, agency, contracts of carriage, and other special forms of contract, but not including contracts relating to agricultural land.14. the relevant portion of item 21 of the matters enumerated ..... in the provincial legislative list is described as follows:land, that is to say, rights in or over land, land tenures, including the relation of landlord and tenant and the collection of rents, transfer, alienation, and devolution of agricultural land.15. item 2 ..... is granted.17. the whole question really turns upon the construction of section 107 (1), government of india act, 1935, and of section 4(1), civil p.c. it cannot be disputed that the bengal council act 18 of 1940 which enacted the new section 168a, bengal tenancy act, is a provincial law as defined by section 311, government of india act, 1935. section 168a, bengal tenancy act, therefore, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 23 1942 (PC)

Maganlal Kishordas Shah Vs. Ramanlal Hiralal Shah

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-23-1942

Reported in : AIR1943Bom362; (1943)45BOMLR761

..... on which he was to get interest at six per cent per annum, and the profits and losses were to be shared equally by the two partners. the partnership was dissolved by mutual consent on january 15, 1935. the stock-in-trade, which was valued at rs. 602, was taken over by defendant ..... take a lease of a part of the estate. that agreement was void under section 11 of the indian contract act, but after the management was given up and he was restored the possession of the estate and acquired the right to contract about it, he carried on the transactions with the plaintiff, retaining the ..... was short of eighteen years by nine days. the new transactions made after those nine days had passed were not merely ratifying the void agreement of partnership, but fresh business conducted on terms which can be ascertained from that agreement. on the principle laid down by the privy council it was quite ..... the business of the partnership was thereafter carried on for over ten years, that the profits were divided at least for the first three years and that in 1935 the stock-in-trade and the creditors were divided between the partners. he, therefore, contends that in these circumstances the appellant is entitled ..... no. 1 and the plaintiff was given a promissory note for rs. 301 as his half share in it. the creditors of the shop were also divided between the partners .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 25 1942 (PC)

Gordhandas T. Mangaldas Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-25-1942

Reported in : AIR1943Bom116; (1943)45BOMLR159

..... the property, because the passage quoted shows that they had distinctly in mind the dayabhaga system, under which no division in interest is necessary.17. in my opinion, on the words of section 25a of the indian income tax act we ought to answer the question put to us in the affirmative, because there has been no physical division of the joint family property ..... the observations and discussions are in respect of a business which was contended to have been separately carried on after a particular date by members under an alleged agreement of partnership. in my opinion those cases do not directly bear on the point. as has been pointed out saligram ramlal v. commsr. of income tax is the only decision in which ..... .j.1. this is a reference made by the appellate tribunal, bombay bench, under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act, raising a question which has given rise to a difference of judicial opinion. the question is :whether on the facts of this case it has been rightly held that the joint family property of the petitioner and his sons has not ..... been partitioned in definite portions within the meaning of section 25a(1) of the indian income-tax (amendment) act, 1922?2. the facts giving rise to the question have never been in dispute. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

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