Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act 1932 section 54 agreements in restraint of trade Page 1 of about 60 results (0.085 seconds)

Feb 27 1980 (HC)

Hukmi Chand Vs. Jaipur Ice and Oil Mills Co. and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1980Raj155; 1980()WLN200

..... as to whether this agreement in restraint of trade is reasonable or not, we will like to deal with the law codified in section 27 of the indian contract act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the contract act) and sections 36, 54 and 55 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the partnership act).section 27 -- agreement in restraint of trade void. -- every agreement by which any one ..... is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind is ..... within the specified local limits, and similarly also in section 54 of the partnership act, but it is not without significance that under sub-section (3) of section 55 of the partnership act, which relates to agreement in restraint of trade in case the goodwill is sold after dissolution, the agreement in restraint of trade has to be only within the specified local limits ..... is no mention that it can also be relating to a specified period. either under exception-1 to section 27 of the contract act or under sections 36, 54 and 55 of the partnership act the agreement in restraint of trade can only be valid., if the restrictions imposed are reasonable.11. the law is settled that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 29 1954 (HC)

Krishnarao Narayanrao Chawate Vs. Shankar Sahadev Mungekar

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1954)56BOMLR973

..... unreasonable restrictions on the defendant, and must, therefore, be held to be in restraint of trade. now, section 54 of the partnership act in terms exempts such an agreement from the operation of the rule which renders an agreement in restraint of trade as void under our law provided the restrictions imposed are reasonable.9. section 27 of the indian contract act in broad and comprehensive terms lays down the rule that every ..... agreement by which any person is restrained from exercising a lawful trade or business of any ..... kind, is, to that extent, void. section 54 of the partnership act recognises one of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 09 1969 (HC)

Hukmi Chand Vs. the Jaipur Ice and Oil Mills Co. and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1969WLN570

..... also referred to the relevant provision of the indian contract act and the indian partnership act, 1932.6. 1 may deal with the first contention of mr. gupta namely, whether the agreement by which kalicharan was restrained from running an ice factory in the premises in question is void being a restraint of trade. the law regarding restraint of trade, has been dealt with in halsburys laws of ..... or within specified local limits; and, not withstanding any thing contained in section 27 of the indian contract ac?, 1872 such agreement shall be valid if the restrictions imposed are reasonable.section 54, agreements in restraint of trade. - partners may, upon or in anticipation of the dissolution of the firm, make an agreement that some or all of them will not carry on a business similar ..... to that of the firm within a specified period or within specified local limits; and not withstanding contained any thing in section 27 of the indian contract act, 1872, such agreement ..... is not reasonable as it is for an definite period. i would first consider the question whether the word 'or' should be read as 'and' in section 36(2), section 54 and section 55(3).15. it is well established that when the language is not only plain, but admits of but one meaning the task of interpretation can hardly be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 1991 (HC)

Raj Chopra and anr. Vs. Narender Anand and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1991(21)DRJ53

..... and also as the restraint was reasonable. section 54 of the partnership act removed the bar imposed by section 27 of the contract act. it does, however, appear to me that the plaintiffs themselves are not sure of their stand but let me set out the sections : indian contract act, 1872 : 'section 27. every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any ..... like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business.' the indian partnership act, 1932 : 'section 54. partners may, upon or in anticipation of the dissolution of the firm, make an agreement that some or all of them will not carry on a business similar to that of the firm within a specified period or ..... bad to agree that both or one of them will not carry on a business similar to that of the firm. modification deed is no such agreement. again, thereforee, section 54 of the partnership act is inapplicable. section 55 is also not applicable. the firm competent builders had not been dissolved and no question of setting the accounts would arise and so also the ..... policy such as that it was inc trait it of trade. it was argued that the restraint clause in the present case 65 was bad for obscurity, illegality and was against public policy. i have already held that the clause is void under section 27 of the contract act and section 54 and 55 of the partnership act do not apply to the facts of the case. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 20 1979 (HC)

Krishan Murgai Vs. Superintendence Company of India (P) Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : AIR1979Delhi232

..... were also a part of the chapter on partnership in the unamended contract act, which later became the indian partnership act, 1932. these exceptions are contained in ss. 11 (2), 36 (2) and 54 of the said act. it will be seen that the framers of the contract act wanted to state the complete law as to the general rule that restraint of trade is void and also the exceptions based ..... act. the first paragraph is taken almost word for word from s. 833 of that production. the original draft of the indian law commission did not contain any specific provision on the ..... to have been imparted to the defendant.3. 'clause 10 of the agreement is not unreasonable and is not contrary to any law. it does not appear to be hit by section 23 or 27 of the contract act. it is not against public policy. it is also not a restraint on trade for an unreasonable period or place.'23. clause 10 bars the defendant ..... nature of the business'. the key to the construction of s. 27 is to be found in the following observation in pollock and mulla on indian contract and specific relief acts, ninth edition by justice j. l. kapur, at p. 271: 'agreements in restraint of trade. -this section, like the last, unfortunately follows the new york draft code, which has been the evil genius of this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 10 1961 (HC)

B. Koteswara Rao Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh, and O ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : [1962]46ITR882(AP)

..... date right up to july 5, 1946, his wife continued to represent him in the said partnership business by reason of the directions given in the will and the provisions of sections 47 and 50 of the indian partnership act, 1932, and, secondly, assuming, however that the firm kotaiah sarabhaiah became dissolved on may 13, ..... section 42 of the indian partnership act do not convey that the idea that the contract must be express and not convey such a contract to continue the partnership after the death of the partner could be inferred from the conduct of the parties. it was not laid down there that the agreement ..... , are entitled to the benefit of section 25(4).it is seen that the case of the assessee was not that the partnership was continued under an agreement of the parties which would constitute a contract contrary to section 42 of the indian partnership act but that the partnership was continued under the directions of the ..... in the statement of the case.that apart, there is no foundation for the argument that there was an agreement which would take the instant case out of the ambit of section 42. the argument of sri rajashwara row, learned counsel for the assessee, is that the conduct of ..... her signatures in my stead along with my partner, veera sarabhaiah garu to all the bank papers, court paper, sale deed, cowles, kaboliyats agreements, papers relating to government and the municipalities, and to all papers which should bear my signature in the matter of my shares, transfers and dividends .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 09 1990 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nalli Silk Emporium and Another

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1991]192ITR79(Mad)

..... there is, however, no agreement to treat the firm as continuing notwithstanding the death of a partner, the partners have no option to treat the firm as continuing. under the indian partnership act, 1932, the firm gets dissolved and the income-tax officer is not entitled to ignore this consequence. there is nothing in the language of section 187, 188 or 189, ..... according to the high court, which precludes the application of the partnership law principles even under the income-tax act. it was accordingly held ..... , viz., matters not specifically referred to in the deeds of partnership, the provisions of the indian partnership act shall be applicable. in other words, there is, under the terms of the partnership, no contract to the contrary, as envisaged in section 42(c) of the indian partnership act. section 42(c) of the indian partnership act provides that, subject to contract between the partners, a firm ..... other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted, referring to the provisions of the deeds of partnership and section 42(c) of the indian partnership act, that, on the terms found in the partnership deeds and the application of the provisions of the indian partnership act, the conclusion was irresistible that the firm stood dissolved on the death of one of the partners .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 19 1959 (HC)

Abdul Razaak Vs. MashiruddIn Ahmed

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1959Cal660,63CWN766

..... in rejecting the said part of the defence story on the materials before us in agreement with the learned subordinate judge. the understanding being out of the way and there being nothing else to suggest that there was any contract to the contrary, section 16 of the indian partnership act would have full play and would entitle the plaintiff to the benefit of this disputed ..... of the nature of such suits, a suit for dissolution and accounts of an unregistered firm would be well protected by sub-section (3) of section 69 of the indian partnership act from the bar under the earlier sub-section or sub-sections of that section. this objection also, of the defendant-appellant should, therefore, fail and it would fail on the merits too, apart from the technical ..... subordinate judge, that, upon a proper and reasonable reading and appreciation thereof, the said supply may well be held to have been made out of the partnership assets. apart from that, however, section 16 of the indian partnership act stands, in the facts of this case, as an insuperable bar to the defence on this point. it is admitted by the defendant that, for the ..... should be held to be not maintainable and should be thrown out in limine upon the view that it was barred under section 69 of the indian partnership act, his specific argument being that the saying sub-section, namely, sub-section (3) to that section, did not apply to this case and could not protect the plaintiff's suit.5. we shall deal with these arguments seriatim .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 1964 (HC)

Sunil Krishna Paul and Other Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Beng ...

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : [1966]59ITR457(Cal)

..... earned is involved, was wrong. it will appear from the order of the tribunal that there was no business within the meaning of section 4 of the indian partnership act as from the instrument of agreement it is apparently clear that the agreement was for merely sharing the income in definite proportion and, therefore, the relationship between the two applicants was no better than that of ..... faultless collection of profits but that by itself does not necessarily establish a partnership within the meaning of the partnership act, 1932. accordingly, it seems to us that the principles enunciated in the aforesaid decision do not apply to cases governed by the provisions of section 4 of the indian partnership act. section 6 of this act provides that in determining whether a group of persons is or is not ..... construction of section 4 of the indian partnership act, it appears that some occupation or activity within the meaning of section 4 read with section 2(b) of the partnership act is involved and such a business does not necessarily mean an undertaking of an industrial or commercial nature. he has referred us to section 2(b) and section 4 of the indian partnership act, which runs as follows :'business includes every trade, occupation .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 1996 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shankar Cottons

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1997)137CTR(Mad)583; [1996]222ITR445(Mad)

..... the partnership business without making them as partners. sec. 30 of the indian partnership act states that a person who is a ..... dumb person. a deaf and dumb person cannot be admitted to the benefits of the partnership as per the provisions of s. 30 of the indian partnership act, 1932. sec. 6 of the indian partnership act, 1932, determines the mode of existence of the partnership. expln. 2 to s. 6 of the indian partnership act states, who are all the persons who can receive a share in the profit of ..... s. 30 of the indian partnership act, 1932, a minor alone can be admitted to the benefits of partnership, with the consent of all the partners. if a minor is admitted to the benefits of partnership, he would not be saddled with the losses of the firm. sec. 6 of the indian partnership act, 1932, particularly, expln. 2 to s. 6 of the partnership act says that the receipt ..... with the persons carrying on the business. it would mean that a major cannot be admitted to the benefits of partnership. admitting a major as a partner to the benefits of partnership was impliedly prohibited under s. 30 of the indian partnership act, 1932. 7. in view of the abovesaid legal position, we are unable to subscribe to the view taken by .....

Tag this Judgment!


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