Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Page 1 of about 36,012 results (0.110 seconds)

Jun 21 1934 (PC)

P.K.P.S. Pichappa Chettiar and Others Vs. Chokalingam Pillai and Other ...

Court : Privy Council

..... the manager of his joint hindu family in 1908, his entering into partnership with the chetties in that year would not ipso facto make the other members of ..... the stranger the partnership will be governed by the act." in this passage reference is made to the indian contract act, which would be applicable to the facts of this case. it is to be noted that the sections referring to partnership in the said act have been repealed and are now embodied in the indian partnership act, 1932. even assuming therefore that virappa was ..... of the family do not ipso facto become partners in the business so as to clothe them with all the rights and obligations of a partner as defined by the indian contract act, in such a case the family as a unit does not become a partner, but only such of its members as in fact enter into a contractual relation with ..... lakshmana was relieved by subrahmanyan chetti, who in turn was relieved about september 1923 when virappa again took up the management; and acted as agent until february 1924 when he returned to india. the plaintiff further alleged that the partnership was profitable until about the year 1916, since which date the business was carried on at a loss. the plaintiff alleged that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 01 1934 (PC)

P.K.P.S. Pichhappa Chettiar Vs. Chokalingam Pillai

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1934)36BOMLR976

..... virappa was the manager of his joint hindu family in 1908, his entering into partnership with the chetties in that year would not ipso facto make the other members ..... the stranger : the partnership will be governed by the act.36. in this passage reference is made to the indian contract act, which would be applicable to the facts of this case. it is to be noted that the sections referring to partnership in the said act have been repealed and are now embodied in the indian partnership act, 1932.37. even assuming, therefore, that ..... of the family do not ipso facto become partners in the business so as to clothe them with all the rights and obligations of a partner as defined by the indian contract act. in such a case the family as a unit does not become a partner, but only such of its members as in fact enter into a contractual relation with ..... was relieved by subrahmanyan chetti, who in turn was relieved about september, 1923, when virappa again took up the management, and acted as agent until february, 1924, when he returned to india.14. the plaintiff further alleged that the partnership was profitable until about the year 1916, since which date the business was carried on at a loss.15. the plaintiff alleged .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 27 1934 (PC)

In Re: Gobindlal Mohata

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : 164Ind.Cas.428

..... a hindu joint family business.3. this seems quite clear, on referring to the definition under section 4 of the indian partnership act and the recent judgment of this court in lalchand v. m. g. bold and co. : air1934cal810 . the relevant section of the presidency towns ..... namely, that the order dated september 15, 1933, for examination of the petitioner and sohanlal mohata under section 36 of the presidency towns insolvency act should be vacated and set aside on the ground that the application on which that order was passed, was made by bhimraj pursuram which admittedly ..... instituted by a joint hindu family and that no such proceedings can be brought by such a family under the provisions of the presidency towns insolvency act.2. learned counsel, however, has informed me that he does not now press for setting aside the earlier order but that he presses the ..... petitioner points out that there is no provision under this act which would entitle a joint family business to initiate proceedings ..... insolvency act is section 99, which states that any two or more persons being partners, or any person carrying on a business in partnership name, may take proceedings or be proceeded against under this act in the name of the firm but learned counsel for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 1935 (PC)

Basanta Kumar Pal Vs. Late Durgadas Akrur Chandra Banik

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : 163Ind.Cas.703

..... suit on that, ground.2. a further objection was raised that the suit could not be maintained owing to the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act of 1932. section 69(2) provides that no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any court by or on ..... is barred under section 69(2) of the act.3. the learned advocate for the opposite party says that that decision is not correct and that it has not taken ..... section 74(a) of the partnership act. this matter was dealt with recently by this court in a case reported in surendra nath de v. manohar de : air1934cal754 , and it was held that a suit by an unregistered firm to enforce a contractual claim accruing before the commencement of the indian partnership act but brought after its commencement ..... the learned judges in the case to which i have referred have pointed out the provisions of sub section (3) of section 1 of the partnership act show that the intention of the legislature was to ensure that a suit which was started after october 1, 1932, should only be by a registered firm ..... after its passage. the learned judge was. in my opinion, wrong in his view of the interpretation of the provisions of the partnership act and the suit ought to have been dismissed.4. the rule is made absolute with costs hearing fee two gold mohurs. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 1935 (PC)

Babu Vs. Dayambai and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1935Bom357; 158Ind.Cas.159

..... the same manner as theretofore. he relies on section 264, contract act, which is one of the sections of the now repealed ch. 11, contract act, re-enacted in the indian partnership act, but the rights in this suit are governed by ch. 11, contract act. section 264 provides:parsons dealing with a firm will not be ..... by the death of his principal, whether the fact of death is known or not.5. but in the english partnership act, there is no provision such as we have in section 264, contract act, and we have been referred to no authority holding that that section does not apply to the case of dissolution ..... death to one of the plaintiffs cannot affect all the plaintiffs with notice that the 'firm had been dissolved. under section 253, contract act, death only dissolves a partnership in the absence of any contract to the contrary, and there is no evidence here that any of the plaintiffs knew that there was ..... advocate-general that section 264 does not apply to dissolution occasioned by death. he points out that that is the rule under english law. in lindley on partnership, edn. 9, p. 282, it is said:notice of death is not requisite to prevent liability from attaching to the estate of a deceased partner ..... winding up. the evidence on the point is not very clear, but i will accept the learned judge's view that probably there was a new partnership between the two surviving partners, tyaballi and defendant 1. tyaballi subsequently died on 13th may 1932. on that finding of fact the learned judge came .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 25 1935 (PC)

(Firm) Ram Prasad-thakur Prasad Vs. (Firm) Kamta Prasad-sita Prasad

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1935All898; 157Ind.Cas.154

..... kendall, j.1. this application has raised a technical question in connection with the indian partnership act of 1932. the plaintiff, purporting to be a firm, entered a plaint on 27th. october 1933, which was admitted and registered on 28th november. on 23rd ..... in the firm.7. it cannot be said that the suit was instituted only when the plaint was amended. it was undoubtedly instituted before the provisions of the act had been complied with. i am therefore of opinion that the decision of the trial court is correct, though it may be inaccurate in stating that the ..... statement in his register. further, it is provided in section 69 as follows:no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this act shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm...unless the firm is registered ..... be made an application to amend, the plaint after having obtained a certificate to the effect that the firm had been registered in accordance with section 59 of the act. the plaint was, amended accordingly, after which the written statement was filed in which the objection was raised that the suit, as framed, was barred by section ..... 69 of the act. the trial court appears to have rejected the plaint, giving as a reason that it was admitted by the plaintiff that the firm was not registered when the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 07 1935 (PC)

Motilal Chimanram Vs. Sarupchand Prithiraj

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1936)38BOMLR1058

..... .there is a proviso to the section with which we are not concerned. this section is based on section 38 of the english partnership act, the only distinction between section 263 of the indian contract act and section 47 of the indian partnership act is that instead of the words ' the rights and obligations of the partners ' we have a fuller expression, viz., ' the authority of each ..... of profits to interest on the capital subscribed by him. this is subject to any agreement, express or implied, between the partners. the wording of section 13 (c) of the indian partnership act is somewhat different, for it is there provided that subject to contract between the partners where a partner is entitled to interest on the capital subscribed by him, such interest ..... and up to dissolution, and, if so, out of what is the interest to be paid the law on the subject was codified in england in the partnership act of 1890, and in india under the indian partnership act of 1932. counsel for the 1st defendant firm relied on a statement of the law in watney v. wells (1867) l.r. 2 ch. app. 250 ..... read with sufficient emphasis on the word ' necessary', the continuing authority of the partners for purposes of winding up is described in the first para, in section 47 of the indian partnership act of 1932 as follows :-after the dissolution of a firm the authority of each partner to bind the firm, and the other mutual rights and obligations of the partners, continue .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 1936 (PC)

Arunachalam Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1936)38BOMLR660

..... real equity between the parties. their lordships think that a reference to sections 24 and 44 of the english, and sections 13 and 48 of the indian partnership act, provides a correct answer and that the true and ultimate right of the appellant against pillai was a right to contribution in proportion to the latter' ..... made a profit or loss, as to the firm's right to be indemnified by a partner for loss caused to it by his wilful neglect, (cf. indian partnership act (no. ix of 1932) section 13(e) and (f)). between partners any right of contribution has reference, prima facie at least, to the ultimate balance ..... of this expression-that is in the sense in which the word is used in clauses (c) and (d) of section 13 of the indian partnership act (ix of 1932). the money necessary for purchasing cotton and carrying on the business was provided by the appellant on the terms that interest was ..... the decision of the high court at madras on a reference made by the commissioner of income-tax, madras, under section 66(2) of the indian income-tax act (act xi of 1922). the appellant is the manager of a hindu undivided family and the order of assessment dated march 11, 1932, was in form ..... as an assessee. from section 24(2) of the indian income-lax act it would seem that the indian legislature thought it necessary to anticipate any possible apprehension that a partnership, by being registered as a registered firm within the meaning of section 26 of the act, might be treated f as a separate assessee in so .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 1936 (PC)

Rm. Ar. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madra ...

Court : Privy Council

..... desirable to ask what is the real equity between the parties. their lordships think that a reference to ss. 24 and 44 of the english, and ss. 13 and 48, indian partnership act provides a correct answer and that the true and ultimate right of the appellant against pillai was a right to contribution in proportion to the latter's share of profits ..... firm has otherwise made a profit or loss, as to the firm's right to be indemnified by a partner for loss caused to it by his wilful neglect: cf. partnership act 9 of 1932, s. 13 (e) and (f). between partners any right of contribution has reference, prima facie at least, to the ultimate balance appearing as the result of a ..... the strict sense of this expression; that is in the sense in which the word is used in cls. (c) and (d), s. 13, partnership act (9 of 1932). the money necessary for purchasing cotton and carrying on the business was provided by the appellant on the terms that interest was to be paid upon his ..... , and the firm is treated as an assessee. from s. 24 (2), income-tax act, it would seem that the indian legislature thought it necessary to anticipate any possible apprehension that a partnership, by being registered as a registered firm within the meaning of s. 26 of the act, might be treated as a separate assessee in so absolute a sense as to prevent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 13 1936 (PC)

Mudenur Nagappa Vs. Firm of Bhagavanji Rasaji by Its Partners

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1936Mad593; (1936)71MLJ378

..... 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 in the appeal filed by sakalchand and although the learned district judge has not ..... 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 1931 but that circumstance in our ..... case, it is common ground, is governed by 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 ..... opinion makes no difference. section 263 of the indian contract act runs thus:after a dissolution of partnership, the rights and obligations of the partners continue in all things necessary for .....

Tag this Judgment!


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