Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: karnataka Year: 1952 Page 1 of about 4 results (0.016 seconds)

Mar 28 1952 (HC)

A.A. Khan and ors. Vs. Ameer Khan and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-28-1952

Reported in : AIR1952Kant131; AIR1952Mys131; ILR1951KAR486; (1953)31MysLJ103

..... has been held to belong to them together with interest thereon or a share of the profits, whichever they choose, in accordance with the principle of section 37 of the indian partnership act. that section provides: 'where any member of a firm has died or otherwise ceased to be a partner, and the surviving or continuing partners carry on the business of the ..... the present was therefore void and could not form the basis of a suit for dissolution and accounts. he has referred to some provisions of the indian partnership act and to some decided cases.the definition of partnership according to section 4 is that it 'is the relationship between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all ..... of h; nor could he, being a minor, enter into a contract with b to form a partnership. ii was observed in that case that there being no partnership in existence, the provisions of section 247 of the indian contract act (which corresponds to section 30 of the indian partnership act) could not be applied in his favour. in 'v. manic kavelu mudahar v. commr. of income ..... tax, mysore', 10 mys. l.j. 316 it has been observed that a minor cannot himself create a partnership and admit himself to the benefits of the same. in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 1952 (HC)

S. Ahmed Khan Vs. Turup Mohamed Hayat

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-28-1952

Reported in : AIR1953Kant4; AIR1953Mys4

..... no substance in the contention either that the suit is not maintainable in the form in which it is brought or that section 69(1) of the indian partnership act is a bar to it.9. in the result, this appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the learned district judge_ are set aside and ..... govinda rao next contends that the plaintiff's suit even on the basis of such a claim is barred under section 69(1) of the indian partnership act as has been held by the learned district judge. section 69(1) provides that no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by ..... paid the entire tax and sued the defendant for contribution. beaumont c.j. held that the language of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 69, partnership act, is wide enough to cover suits relating to a dissolved firm and sub-section (1) covers a suit by a plaintiff suing in respect of a right ..... liability after or at the time of the dissolution. the claim for payment was therefore construed in that case as based on the relationship of partnership and arising directly under the provisions of the partnership act. that case was followed by grille j. of the nagpur high court in -- 'chhotelal nanakram v. gopaldas gulabdas' . he held ..... he had paid on behalf of the defendant under section 70 or section 69 of the contract act. but as the case stood the plaintiff had to base his claim on the relationship arising out of the partnership and he could not therefore recover.in that case there was also no agreement relied on between .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 1952 (HC)

M. Nagendriah Vs. M. Ramachandriah and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-05-1952

Reported in : AIR1953Kant108; AIR1953Mys108

..... that the denial of that allegation by the defendant does not take the suit out of the scope of section 11(b) (which is the same as article 17, indian court-fees act) is in favour of the appellant's contention. as also the case in -- 'vishnuprasad narandas v. narandas mohan-lal', : air1950bom4 (b) where it has been held that a suit ..... lah 123 (fb)' (g), that the court-fee payable on a memorandum of appeal in a suit for partition which falls under article 17(vi) of schedule ii, court-fees act would be the same as that leviable on a plaint and is not to be assessed on the basis of the value of the subject-matter in appeal.6. in ..... was in exclusive possession of those items. the plaintiff paid a fixed court-fee of rs. 50/- on the plaint under article 11(b) of schedule ii, mysore court-fees act. this was at that stage proper and sufficient and the case reported in -- '44 mys hcr 203' (a) where it has been held that where a co-owner, co-sharer .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 1952 (HC)

Harbhogowandas Purushothamdas Vs. C. Narayana Iyengar and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-28-1952

Reported in : AIR1952Kant116; AIR1952Mys116

..... hundies was ex parte and the decree passed against him remains unquestioned. the dispute in the case centred on the liability of defendant 2. he denied the existence of any partnership between him and defendant 3 and contended that in view of the execution of the hundies by defendant 3 in his individual capacity the claim against any one else is ..... cannot be different even if defendant 2 was a partner of defendant 3. it may however, be mentioned that the alleged partnership between defendants 2 and 3 for which the admission of defendant 2 in a letter addressed to the indian bank is relied upon had come to an end as intimated to the bank in a subsequent letter prior to the ..... date of the hundies. whatever may be the value of the statements made to the indian bank, these cannot help the plaintiff to impute liability to defendant 2 on the score of his 'holding out' to be a partner, as it is not alleged that defendant .....

Tag this Judgment!


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