Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: mumbai Year: 1942 Page 1 of about 8 results (0.024 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

..... question of transferalbility of this particular kind of property and not to the nature of the property itself.5. under section 69, sub-section (3), sub-clause (b), of the indian partnership act, the power of the official assignee to realise the property of an insolvent partner is not affected by the prohibitions contained in sub-sections (1) and (2). section 52 of ..... the important insignia 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 ..... to realize unliquidated damages for a breach of contract. as pointed out by the learned chief justice in appaya nijlingappa hattargi v. subrao babaji teli : air1938bom108 , section 69 of the indian partnership act is designed to encourage registration by imposing a disability in the case of firms which are not registered. sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 69 forbid the bringing of ..... . 1's contention is 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 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 17 1942 (PC)

Ramchandra Lalbhai Vs. Chinubhai Lalbhai

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-17-1942

Reported in : (1943)45BOMLR1075

..... 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 ..... paid to chinubhai lalbhai and brothers, limited. mr. taraporevala very wisely did not press this point when he was confronted with section 69 of the partnership act, and he realised that in pressing his argument he was endangering his whole suit.53. the next submission of mr. taraporevala is that the ..... deciding whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation, the principle that the court must adopt is the same that underlies section 73 off the indian contract act. under that section the court is empowered to award damages when there is a breach of contract for any loss or damage caused to ..... the joint family with the lal mills; and (3) the security of the joint family property given to the banks under section 202 of the indian contract act, where the agent has himself an interest in the property which forms the subject-matter of the agency, the agency cannot, in the absence ..... to revoke the authority of a substituted agent. to my mind the contention of mr. taraporevala is clearly erroneous. section 195 of the indian contract act provides that in selecting a substituted agent under section 194, an agent is bound to exercise the same amount of discretion as a man .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 24 1942 (PC)

Pannaji Devichand Vs. Lakkaji Dolaji

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-24-1942

Reported in : AIR1943Bom156; (1943)45BOMLR181

..... 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 facts. this section occurs in the chapter relating to the dissolution of a firm, and it says that where there are ..... 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 be ..... appeared in the suit, and there is nothing in that rule to show that personal execution against the partner cannot be taken unless the property of the partnership was exhausted. the provisions of o. xxi, rule 50, do not seem to have been brought to the notice of the court. i am unable ..... no two different debts, but only one debt created by the decree. there is no question, therefore, of executing the decree against the assets of the partnership before executing it against the separate property of the partner. on the other hand, by virtue of the provisions of o. xxi, rule 50, the ..... , rule 7 provides that where a summons is served in the manner provided by rule 3 upon a person having the control or management of the partnership business, no appearance by him shall be necessary unless he is a partner of the firm sued.3. now, applying these provisions to the facts .....

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

..... hindu undivided family.11. on this section the contention of the commissioner is that for the purposes of the indian income-tax act members of an undivided hindu family cannot enter into a partnership in respect of a portion of the joint property which they have partitioned among themselves. but in their lordships' ..... be discharged and the case remanded to the high court for disposal after taking such action under sub-section (4) of section 66 of the indian income-tax act, 1922, as the high court may think fit in the light of this judgment. the respondent will pay the appellants' costs of this appeal ..... by the 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 case, having regard to the personal law governing the assessee and the requirements of the transfer of property act (iv of 1882) and the stamp act (ii of 1899) has the deed of partnership dated february 12, 1933, brought into existence a genuine firm entitled to registration under the provisions of section 26a ..... of the act ?7. when a document purporting to be an instrument of partnership is tendered under section 26a on behalf of a firm and application is made for registration of the firm as constituted .....

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

..... age 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 competent for ..... real ground of distinction, but it is urged that even in the present case there is nothing to show that the plaintiff advanced any money to the partnership after defendant no. 1 attained majority. but this is not a suit to recover any sum or any loan advanced to defendant no. 1, but ..... 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 no. ..... already dissolved, then for accounts and recovery of the amount found due.2. on august 11, 1924, the plaintiff-appellant entered into an oral agreement of partnership with defendant no. 1 to conduct a cloth shop at thasra in the name of ramanlal maganlal. the plaintiff was to advance the necessary capital on which ..... the latter should advance money on mortgage and 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 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 1942 (PC)

Chiranjilal Ramchandra Loyalka Vs. Jatashankar N. Joshi

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-19-1942

Reported in : AIR1942Bom297; (1942)44BOMLR692

..... pointed out by mr. d.b. desai for the defendant that the death of a member of a company does not, as in the case of a partnership, dissolve his connection with the company and that until steps are taken to transfer his interest, the dead shareholder, that is to say, his estate remains ..... purpose of the performance and the discharge of the obligations of the contract, a liability which would also arise by reason of section 37 of the indian contract act, i do not think that it can be said that there was any member in existence who could refer any matter to arbitration within the ..... there had consequently been no breach of the agreement to refer. in this connection mr. bhagwati referred me to section 1(1) of the english arbitration act of 1934 which altered the law in england as laid down in the case above referred to, and which provides that an arbitration agreement shall not ..... it is hereby declared that the east india cotton association, limited, is a recognised cotton association for the purposes and subject to the provisions of this act and the articles and by-laws of the said association shall, so far as they relate to matters for which by-laws may be made under the ..... brought this suit, and among other defences the defendant in paragraph 11 of the written statement submitted that by reason of the provisions of the bombay cotton contracts act (bom. iv of 1932) and the rules, regulations, articles of association and by-laws of the east india cotton association, ltd., it is obligatory .....

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

..... 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 ..... it is not possible to have a division by metes and bounds of a business, except by winding it up and rebringing the assets under a new partnership agreement. the view of mr. justice dalip singh in sher singh nathu ram v. commsr. of income-tax appears to be somewhat widely expressed, and ..... 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 ..... mr. justice addison and mr. justice sale, is saligram ramlal v. commsr. of income tax, and the bench held that section 25a of the indian income-tax act contemplates an actual partition by metes and bounds of the joint family property, and not a mere change of the coparcenary to a tenancy in common ..... the question was whether, after the members severed one portion of the joint family asset and entered into a partnership agreement in respect thereof, the income-tax officer should have recorded the partnership agreement under section 26a, or whether such an agreement amounted to a severance of that asset from the rest of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 25 1942 (PC)

Gordhandas T. Mangaldas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-25-1942

Reported in : [1943]11ITR183(Bom)

..... 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. commissioner of income-tax ..... not possible to have a division by metes and bounds of a business, except by winding it up and re bringing the assets under a new partnership agreement. the view of mr. justice dalip singh in sher singh nathu ram v. commissioner of income-tax , appears to be somewhat widely expressed, ..... . we therefore confirm the appellate assistant commissioners order and dismiss this appeal." on the application of the assessee under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act (xi of 1922) the appellate tribunal referred the case to the bombay high court. judgment beaumont, c.j. this is a reference made ..... are therefore left to give our own answer on a careful consideration of the several judgments read with the provisions of section 25a of the indian income-tax act. we have stated before that the question raised in biradhmal lodhas case was materially different, being one of a partial partition. in the ..... question was whether, after the members severed one portion of the joint family asset and entered into a partnership agreement in respect thereof, the income-tax officer should have recorded the partnership agreement under section 26a, or whether such an agreement amounted to a severance of that asset from the rest .....

Tag this Judgment!


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