Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: chennai Year: 1942 Page 1 of about 7 results (0.040 seconds)

Mar 03 1942 (PC)

Goverdhandoss Tokersey Vs. M. Abdul Rahiman and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-03-1942

Reported in : AIR1942Mad634; (1942)2MLJ636

..... 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 the defendants ..... 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 see whether the plaintiff was entitled to bring the suit in his own name. it is true that the ..... opinion, whether the benefit of a suit is to go to any person other than the plaintiff ultimately. the provisions of section 69 (2) of the indian partnership act could only be attracted to a suit if it was instituted either by or on behalf of the firm, that is to say, ex facie it purports ..... was actually filed in the interest of the firm. he urged that such a suit would fall within the ambit of section 69 (2) of the indian partnership act and would be covered by the words 'on behalf of the firm' used in that section. we are not impressed by that argument. a stringent provision ..... brought by the plaintiff on behalf of the firm and would be maintainable if the firm had been duly registered before its institution as required by the indian partnership act. the reasons for this change of front are not far to seek. it was not denied on behalf of the plaintiff that the firm of .....

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

..... 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 ..... 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 the 2nd ..... by the government servants' conduct rules from engaging in business without the permission of the government, and that therefore all the transactions that were entered into on account of the partnership were null and void. the learned advocate for the petitioner cites sundrabai v. manohar : air1933bom262 . in support of his contention. although the government servants' conduct rules contain this provision and ..... prejudiced by the fact that the suits were not brought on the footing of a holding out. moreover, the learned district munsiff seems to have found that there was a partnership; though certain sentences two paragraphs later would rather suggest the contrary. in paragraph 43 of his judgment, the learned district munsiff definitely says, 'i have come to the conclusion that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 28 1942 (PC)

S.V.M. Mahomed Jamaluddeen and Brothers Vs. the Commissioner of Income ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-28-1942

Reported in : AIR1942Mad736; (1942)2MLJ620

..... partner there. therefore the control and management of the firm was not wholly without british india. that being the case the firm is liable to be taxed under the indian income-tax act. section 4-a is a new section and the question here is governed by its terms. before the tribunal there was apparently much discussion of clause (7) of the ..... this court:whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the applicant firm was 'resident' in british india under section 4-a (6) of the income-tax act.2. the tribunal has expressed the opinion that the applicant firm was resident in british india and we have no hesitation in concurring in that opinion.3. the firm commenced ..... partnership deed which provides for the management of the firm in colombo. we do not consider that this clause has any bearing on the question. what the court has to consider .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 28 1942 (PC)

Messre S V M Mohamed Jamaluddeen and Bros Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-28-1942

Reported in : [1942]10ITR484(Mad)

..... without british india. that being the case the firm is liable to be taxed under the indian income-tax act. section 4-a is a new section and is governed here by its terms. before the tribunal there was apparently much discussion of clause 7 of the partnership deed which provides for the management of the firm in colombo. we do not considered ..... this court :-'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the applicant firm was resident in british india under section 4-a (b) of the income-tax act.'the tribunal has expressed the opinion that the applicant firm was resident in british india and we have no hesitation in concurring in that opinion. the firm commenced carrying on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 19 1942 (PC)

Pr. Al. M. Muthukaruppan Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-19-1942

Reported in : (1943)1MLJ171

..... commissioner of income-tax to state a case. he refused to do so, but was directed by this court to make this reference under section 66 (3) of the indian income-tax act. the question referred reads as follows:whether the petitioner was not entitled on the facts and in the circumstances of the case to claim a deduction of rs. 22 ..... alfred henry lionel leach, c.j.1. the assessee carried on a money-lending business in rangoon in partnership with the s. p. k. a. firm. the firm composed of the assessee and the s. p. k. a. firm was known as the s. p. k. a. a. m. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 19 1942 (PC)

Pr. Al. M. Muthukaruppan Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madr ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-19-1942

Reported in : AIR1943Mad389; [1943]11ITR38(Mad)

..... commissioner of income-tax to state a case. he refused to do so, but was directed by this court to make this reference under section 66(3) of the indian income-tax act. the question referred reads as follows :-'whether the petitioner was not entitled on the facts and in the circumstances of the case to claim a deduction of rs. 22 ..... (judgment of the court was delivered by the honourable the chief justice).the assessee carried on a money-lending business in rangoon in partnership with the s.p.k.a. firm. the firm composed of the assessee and the s.p.k.a. firm was known as the s.p.k.a.a.m. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 15 1942 (PC)

V. Ramasami Aiyangar and ors. Vs. S.M.A.M. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar an ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-15-1942

Reported in : AIR1942Mad478; (1942)1MLJ430

..... firm name of n. m. s. rm. did not belong to the third defendant alone, but was carried on by the first, second, third and fourth defendants and alagappa in partnership until alagappa's death; (if) that after alagappa's death, the business was certainly continued, but he left undecided the question whether the second defendant could be regarded as one ..... they are entitled to maintain the suit against the other partners of the firm as the first defendant did not pay, the $1,10,525 to a person who under indian law could be regarded as the authorised agent of the depositor and therefore there had in law been no repayment of the deposit. in these circumstances they contend that they .....

Tag this Judgment!


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