Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Court: chennai Page 1 of about 2,466 results (0.066 seconds)

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 case, it is common ground, is governed by chapter xi of the indian contract act which has since been repealed by the indian partnership act, 1932.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!

Apr 22 1936 (PC)

M. Ar. Rm. P.M. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. the National City Bank of New ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1936Mad707; (1936)71MLJ373

..... suits against firms in the firm name apply? in the first place, it is impossible to regard the minors as constituting a partnership firm. in the indian partnership act 1932, 'partnership' is described as the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business (section 4). the next section ..... admitted to some benefit, it is unnecessary to rely upon the decision, already mentioned, of the house of lords: for section 30 of the indian partnership act places the matter beyond doubt. we may in this connection also mention, that under the code, as under the english law, when a decree ..... goes on to say that the relation of partnership arises from contract and not from status. it follows that a minor, who is incapable of ..... has been obtained against a firm in the firm name, execution may be levied against the partnership property, notwithstanding the fact that a minor possesses some interest. it is unnecessary to pursue this matter, as mr. rajah iyer, the respondents' learned ..... is, that there must be at least two adult partners who are capable of contracting, before a minor is entitled to the benefits of partnership. the language of section 30 is perfectly clear and it expressly enacts that even where some benefit is reserved to a minor, he is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 1936 (PC)

M. Ar. Rm. P.M. Chidambaram Chettiar and ors. Vs. the National City Ba ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 164Ind.Cas.806

..... to suits against firms in the firm name, apply in the first place, it is impossible to regard the minors as constituting a partnership firm. in the indian partnership act, 1932, 'partnership' is described as the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business (s. 4). the next section ..... admitted to some benefit, it is unnecessary to rely upon the decision, already mentioned of the house of lords : for section 30 of the indian partnership act places the matter beyond doubt. we may in this connection also mention, that under the code, as under the english law when a decree has ..... goes on to say that the relation of partnership arises from contract and not from status. it follows that a minor, who is incapable of contracting ..... been obtained against a firm in the firm name, execution may be levied against the partnership property, notwithstanding the fact that a minor possesses some interest. it is unnecessary to pursue this matter, as mr. rajah iyer, the respondents' ..... is, that there must be at least two adult partners who are capable of contracting before a minor , is entitled to the benefits of partnership. the language of section 30 is perfectly clear and it expressly enacts that even where some benefit is reserved to a minor, he is not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 28 1936 (PC)

M.S.A. Subramania Mudaliar Firm by Partner M.S.A. Subramania Mudaliar ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1936Mad991; 165Ind.Cas.939; (1936)71MLJ663

..... . when the defendant raised the objection that as the firm was not registered the suit was liable to be dismissed in view of the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act, the plaintiff got the firm registered and applied for the amendment of the plaint as mentioned above. the lower court dismissed the application holding that by the amendment the defect ..... indeed it is clear that the suit as originally instituted was incompetent because of the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act. it is also clear that any subsequent amendment of the petition after getting the firm registered under the act cannot relate back to the date of the institution of the suit so as to cure the defect which existed at ..... facts of this case. there was no question there of any amendment of the plaint, to take effect on the date of amendment. the provisions of section 69 of the partnership act are not at all analogous, but are entirely different from those of order 33, rule 15, civil procedure code. when it is provided imperatively by the statute that no suit shall be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 07 1936 (PC)

Parakam Catholic Sangham Proprietors, Chamkath Parekkath Variyed's Son ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 171Ind.Cas.821

..... clause 2 of the act came into force. the learned district munsif of chowghat dismissed the suit holding that as the firm ..... petition is whether the suit is barred by section 69 of clause 2 of the partnership act. the suit is to recover a sum of money due on a promissory note, to an unregistered firm executed before the indian partnership act of 1922. the action was laid admittedly after october 1933 and when section 69, ..... will be proceeded with without reference to section 69, and the same would not apply to the case. but when the section enacts that nothing in this act shall affect any 'remedy'; 'affect' cannot be interpreted to mean ''apply' to. the term 'remedy' connotes a right to sue or to take ..... a legal remedy in respect of a right already acquired he was also of the view that the words 'before the commencement of the act' would not qualify legal proceeding or remedy. it seems to me that the interpretation placed by sulaiman, c.j., is correct, namely clause (6 ..... any legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, title, interest, obligation or liability or anything done or suffered before the commencement of this act.4. the view taken by sulaiman, c.j. was that the words are general and would ordinarily include any suit or application for the enforcement of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 1937 (PC)

P.P. Sundararaja Aiyangar Vs. P.L. Mannarsawmi and

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1937Mad528; (1937)1MLJ610

horwill, j.1. this was a suit by an unregistered partnership against a debtor. the only question raised in the suit and in this petition is whether, in view of the fact that the money was borrowed before the indian partnership act came into force, the suit is maintainable in the face of section 69 of the act.2. section 69 makes it clear that no suit of the description can be brought after the act comes into force. it is argued that this is controlled by section 74; but section 74 in my opinion although it keeps intact any rights that may have accrued before the act came into force, does not affect the enforcement of that right by means of a suit which is governed by section 69. by virtue of section 1 of the act, section 69 came into force one year after the rest of the act and undoubtedly the purpose of this is to give persons a year's grace in bringing suits of this description or in getting themselves registered. in view of the plain wording of section 69, i find that the learned district munsif was wrong in holding that this suit was maintainable and in granting a decree. the petition is therefore allowed with costs throughout and the suit dismissed.

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 26 1937 (PC)

S. Soomar Sait and Sons by their Partner A.M. Soomar Sait Vs. P.V. Che ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1937Mad666; (1937)2MLJ221

..... court for the price of a second-hand motor car sold by them to the defendant. one defence raised was that by reason of section 69 of the indian partnership act the plaintiffs being an unregistered partnership were not entitled to sue and that contention the lower court upheld and dismissed the suit on that as well as on other grounds. the argument there ..... was that cutchi memons are to be included in the latter part of section 5 of the indian partnership act which reads:the relation of partnership arises from contract and not from status; and, in particular, the members of a hindu undivided family carrying on a family business as such, or a burmese ..... buddhist husband and wife carrying on business as such are not partners in such business.2. it is argued here by mr. v.g. row that this is a partnership which arises from status and not from contract because it should be held that cutchi memons stand in an analogous position to hindu undivided families carrying on their family business .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 03 1937 (PC)

K.A. Dawood Sahib Vs. V.A. Sheik Mohideen Sahib and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1938Mad5; (1937)2MLJ760

..... share of his deceased father, and we consider that this decision is correct.5. the learned advocate for the appellant has relied on the provisions of section 13 of the indian partnership act. ci. (b) of that section states that the partners are entitled to share equally in the profits earned, and shall contribute equally to the losses sustained by the firm. but ..... this basis. the learned advocate for the appellant rightly abandoned the contention with regard to the house on having his attention drawn to the provisions of section 48 of the indian partnership act, and, therefore, it is only necessary to discuss whether he is entitled to succeed on the other point.4. in the trial court the plaintiff contended that he was sahib ..... the first defendant a share of 6 1/2 annas. this, of course, meant sharing both the losses and profits in these proportions. at an early stage in the original partnership, partnership moneys were advanced on mortgage. two sums were in fact so advanced on the same property--a sum of rs. 2,500 and another of rs. 1,900. the mortgagors ..... that term, the mutual rights and duties of the partners remain the same as they were before the expiry, so far as they may be consistent with the incidents of partnership at will; and(c) where a firm constituted to carry out one or more adventures br undertakings carries out other adventures or undertakings, the mutual rights and duties of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 1938 (PC)

S. Girdharilal Son and Co. Vs. B. Kappini Gowder and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1938Mad688; (1938)2MLJ44

..... language of a marginal note, it is noteworthy that in section 8 of the english act corresponding to section 69 of the indian partnership act, the marginal note is 'disability of persons in default'. in the indian companies act, the legislature has provided that unregistered associations of the kind contemplated by the act will be illegal on default of registration. these are, in my opinion, different ways ..... detail or with the several decisions referred to in their judgments.2. the relevant facts and dates are: the promissory note sued on was executed on 12th march, 1931, the partnership act except section 69 came into force on 1st october, 1932, section 69 came into force on 1st october, 1933, and this suit was filed in august, 1934. on these facts ..... language, it is not easy to see any marked difference between the above words and the language of section 69 of the partnership act. in view however of the way in which the general words of this section of the partnership act have been understood in many of the reported decisions, i prefer to deal with the case on the footing that, but for ..... varadachariar, j.1. i agree with pandrang row, j., that the present suit is maintainable and that the objection based on section 69(2) of the partnership act must be overruled. the arguments that can be urged in favour of one view or the other have been fully set out in the judgments delivered by my learned brothers; .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 25 1938 (PC)

Siddavarupu Ramalinga Reddy Vs. Rachaputi Ramalingam Setty and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1938Mad929; (1938)2MLJ790

..... v. dinanath mahish the circumstance of concealment is material as leading to the inference that the partner was 'taking advantage' of his position. even the indian partnership act of 1932 has not enacted or adopted any irrebuttable presumption in respect of renewals of leases by a co-partner. the decisions of the judicial committee ..... for his share of the profits made by the use of the common property see watson and company v. ramchand dutt and section 37 of the partnership act). we accordingly hold that the obstruction caused by the 1st defendant was unlawful and entitled the plaintiff to claim damages.36. as regards the quantum of ..... we do not think it necessary to deal with this argument of mr. srinivasa aiyangar. it is no doubt recognised in section 53 of the partnership act that even after dissolution, any partner may restrain any other partner from using any of the property of the firm for his own benefit until the ..... added that even if they should be found to lay down a stricter rule, this court has only to apply the law as laid down-in the indian trusts act hasanali v. esmailji : (1907)9bomlr606 .14. it may be conceded that as regards renewals obtained by 'trustees', the principle of equity in favour ..... the new lease, the 1st defendant was entitled to the benefit of the new lease on the principle of equity embodied in section 88 of the indian trusts act. founding himself on an observation of warrington, j., in bevan v. webb (1905) 1 ch. 620 and on certain remarks of lord lindley .....

Tag this Judgment!


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