Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act 1932 section 19 implied authority of partner as agent of the firm Page 1 of about 460 results (0.101 seconds)

Feb 23 2000 (HC)

Kadiyala Seshagiri Rao Vs. Kanneganti Dasaiah and Another

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2000(2)ALD528; 2000(2)ALT234

..... of section 22, the act of a partner which is done to carry on, in ..... necessary; and to do all other acts and things usual, necessary, expedient and incidental to the business and management of the firm.6. section 18 of the indian partnership act, 1932 postulates that subject to the provisions of this act, a partner is the agent of the firm for the purposes of the business of the firm. section 19 deals with the implied authority of the partner as agent of the firm. sub-section (!) states that subject to the provisions ..... the usual way, business of the kind carried on by the firm .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 2009 (HC)

Shantappa Vs. Irappa Shankarappa and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2009(6)KarLJ257; 2009(6)KLJ257

..... arising under a contract shall be instituted in any court by any person suing as a partner ..... in the firm. he has further contended that as per section 19(2)(f) and (g) of the act, no partner has an implied authority to act as an agent of the firm to acquire immovable property on behalf of the firm or to transfer the immovable property belonging to the firm. he therefore submits that the 1st defendant could not have ..... defendants 1 to 3 constituted a partnership firm to run a partnership business. drawing the attention of the court to section 69(1) of the indian partnership act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' for short), he submits that unless the firm was a registered one and the person suing is or has been shown in the register of firms as a partner in the firm, no suit to enforce any right .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 01 1999 (HC)

Subhash Chander Vs. Ram Chander and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2000)125PLR475

..... appellant was that rangi ram had the implied authority to give a valid discharge of the outstanding amount to the firm in the capacity of a partner. in this regard we can examine the provisions of sections 18 and 19 of the indian partnership act, 1932. section 18 of the said act lays down that subject to the provisions of this act, a partner is the agent of the firm for the purpose of the business ..... of the firm. in the present case when the suit was ..... instituted no firm was in existence as the firm had already been dissolved in the year .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 11 1995 (HC)

Shivam Construction Co. and ors. Vs. Vijaya Bank, Ahmedabad and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : AIR1997Guj24; (1997)1GLR774

..... are enumerated and prescribed with regard to the relations of partners to the third parties. a conspectus of sections 18, 19 ..... of the partner rendering the firm and other partners immune from the said liability. on the contrary, a partner is an agent of the firm for the purpose of business of the firm. there is an implied authority of the partner to act as an agent of the firm,24. section 18 of the indian partnership act, 1932, in chapter iv makes it clear that subject to the provisions of the partnership act a partner is an agent of the firm for the ..... purpose of business of the firm. in chapter iv, various provisions .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 03 1950 (HC)

Sohan Lal Vs. Firm Madho Ram Banwari Lal and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1952P& H240

..... authority to submit a dispute relating to the business of the firm to arbitration.9. sections 18 and 19 of the indian partnership act 1932, are relevant to the argument raised. section 18 and the material portion of section 19 read : '18. subject to the provisions of this act, apartner is the agent of the firm for the purposesof the business of the flrm.'19 (1) subject to the provisions of section 22 the act of a partner ..... the provisions of section 19 and other provisions of the act and the authorityof a partner to bind the firm conferred by section 19(1) of the act is controlled by the limitations specified in section 19(2) of the act. in plain english sub-section (2) of section 19 of the act enumerates acts in respect of which a partner has no 'implied authority' to bind his co-partners while purporting to act on behalf of the firm without their express ..... authority or a usage or custom of trade empowering him to bind his co-partners by acts specified in sub-section (2) of section 19 of the act. in other words, while a partner is the agent of the firm and the act of a partner .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 20 2015 (HC)

Rajiv Kumar Gupta Vs. Susham Singla and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... clauses, it appears that a "deemed/implied" authorisation of the other co-owners regarding respective shares in the aforementioned property was given to one rajiv kumar gupta for entering into the agreement to sell. in essence, there is no separate authorisation in writing. however, section 14 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (for short "1932 act") deals with the property of the firm. the same is reproduced herein under ..... are the co-owners. though chapter iv of 1932 act provides relations of partners to third parties, but there are certain acts, which, in the absence of any usage or custom of trade, do not empower the partner implied authority to deal with the following acts:- "19. implied authority of partner as agent of the firm.-(1) subject to the provisions of section 22, the act of a partner which is done to carry on, in the ..... :- "14. the property of the firm.-subject to contract between the partners, the property of the firm includes all property and rights and interests in property originally brought into the stock of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 28 2015 (HC)

Horace Kevin Gonsalves and Another Vs. Prabha Ganpat Borkar and Others

Court : Mumbai

..... . ? 52. learned counsel submits that mr. peter drego, who was an acting partner of m/s.drego enterprises, had implied authority to represent the firm and to execute power of attorney in favour of a third party to represent them and take an action on behalf of the firm under sections 18 and 19 of the indian partnership act, 1932. in support of this submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the following ..... have implied authority to transfer any immovable property belonging to the firm or could not have compromised or relinquished any claim or portion of a claim on behalf of the firm. he submitted that each and every partner of the firm is an agent of the firm and has to act in accordance with the powers and authorities under the partnership deed as well as under the provisions of the partnership act, 1932. 31 ..... court found that satya narain has implied power to conduct business on behalf of the partnership firm and the implied authority binds all the partners. section 18 of the partnership act postulates that "subject to the provisions of the act a partner is the agent of the firm for the purposes of the business of the firm". section 19(1) adumbrates that "subject to the provisions of section 22 the act of the partners which is done to carry .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 13 1936 (PC)

Mudenur Nagappa Vs. Firm of Bhagavanji Rasaji by Its Partners

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1936Mad593; (1936)71MLJ378

..... a general proposition, an authority to give discharge for a debt on payment, does not include a power to compromise or settle it in any way a partner likes. (lindley on partnership, 10th edition (1935) pp. 190 and 191). we may mention that this principle has now received statutory recognition (section 19(c) the indian partnership act, 1932).5. it is said that the firm became dissolved on 5th november ..... 'continue' clearly shows; for, it implies that the rights previously possessed remain in existence. far from enlarging, the section limits those powers, as the authority of the partners continues 'in all things necessary for winding up the business or the partnership', in other words, only so far as may be necessary to wind up its affairs (cf. section 47 of the indian partnership act, 1932).7. no further question arises ..... chapter xi of the indian contract act which has since been repealed by the indian partnership act, 1932. the relevant part of section 251 runs thus:each partner who does any act necessary for, or usually done in, carrying on the business of such a partnership as that of which he is a member binds his co-partners to the same extent as if he were their agent duly appointed for that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 1967 (HC)

New Cotton and Wool Pressing Factory Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, R ...

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : [1967]65ITR662(Raj)

..... property and the ownership of the property vests in the partners of the firm. in support of his argument, has he referred to section 19 of the indian partnership act, 1932. it would be proper to reproduce here section 9(1) of the act and section 19 of the indian partnership act on whose interpretation the above argument is based. they run as follows.income-tax act'9. (1) the tax shall be payable by ..... carried on by the firm, him act binds to firm, that is, in other words, his act is as much ..... on behalf of the firm nor is empowered to acquire any immovable property on behalf of the firm nor is empowered to transfer immovable property belonging to the firm.we have given due consideration to this argument, but, in our opinion, it is not tenable. it may be observed that section 19 deals with implies authority of the partner as agent of the firm. sub-section (1) lays down ..... that subject to the provisions of section 22, if a partner of the firm does something and if that act is done by him to carry on in the usual way, business of the kind which is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 22 1991 (SC)

Sanganer Dal and Flour Mill Vs. F.C.i. and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1992SC481; I(1992)BC187(SC); JT1991(5)SC355; 1992(I)OLR(SC)1; 1991(2)SCALE983; (1992)1SCC145; [1991]Supp1SCR542; 1992(1)LC471(SC)

..... contention raised by sri sushil kumar jain, learned counsel for the appellant is that by operation of section 19(2)(a) of the indian partnership act, 1932 (for short as the 'partnership act') there is no implied authority given to one of the partners to refer the dispute relating to the business of the firm for arbitration and therefore the reference made by the court, pursuant to a contract entered into by ..... court found that satya narain has implied power to conduct business on behalf of the partnership firm and the implied authority binds all the partners. section 18 of the partnership act postulates that 'subject to the provisions of the act a partner is the agent of the firm for the purposes of the business of the firm'. section 19(1) adumbrates that 'subject to the provisions of section 22 the act of the partners which is done to carry ..... on in the usual way the business of the kind carried on by the firm .....

Tag this Judgment!


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