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 it is to be noted that the sections referring to partnership in the said act have been repealed and are now embodied in the indian partnership act, 1932.37.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!
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 he relies on section 264, contract act, which is one of the sections of the now repealed ch. 11, contract act, re-enacted in the indian partnership act, but the rights in this suit are governed by ch. 11, contract act.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!
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!
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!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1937Bom225; (1937)39BOMLR260
..... tax. therefore, so far as that point is concerned, i think the learned judge was right in holding that the case fell under section 69 of the indian partnership act.3. the next point taken by the applicant-and in view of the absence of any authority on the construction of section 69, it is a point ..... he is entitled to recover this sum against the defendant not in respect of a partnership, but as being moneys paid to the use of the defendant, and recoverable under section 70 of the indian contract act, and that section 69 of the indian partnership act has no application. that argument might perhaps have prevailed, had the assessment been made ..... . the facts are that the plaintiff and the defendant were partners in a business carried on in the name of the union trading agency, and that the partnership was dissolved in august, 1934. the accounts were then made up, and the defendant paid to the plaintiff a sum of rs. 600 odd on account ..... firm. sub-section (i) of section 69 is in the following terms :-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 or any person alleged to ..... the case of a dissolved firm. it is pointed out that so long as a firm is existing, it can be registered under section 58 of the act, and any difficulty arising under section 69 can thus be overcome, but that if the latter section applies to a dissolved firm, the bar imposed by section .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1938Bom108; (1937)39BOMLR1214; 173Ind.Cas.766
..... of partnerships which have not been registered under the act. the scheme of the act as to registration is to give any firm a right to register, ..... disclosing the particulars required by the act, and then section 69 is designed to encourage registration by ..... right.2. section 69 of the indian partnership act forbids the bringing of suits in respect ..... as the persons who were members of the partnership and therefore entitled to the debt, sue after the dissolution of the partnership to recover the debt. the learned judge held that even if the dissolution of the partnership were proved, nevertheless the suit would not lie, having regard to section 69 of the indian partnership act, and the question is whether that decision is .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1939Bom61; (1938)40BOMLR1275
..... the trial court held that the suit was not maintainable, having regard to section 69 of the indian partnership act. the indian partnership act came into operation on october 1, 1932, but by virtue of section 1, sub-section (3), section 69 of the act: only came into force on october 1, 1933, that is two days before this suit was ..... sense.12. for the reasons which i have given, i am of opinion that this suit is not barred by section 69 of the indian partnership act. we must, therefore, allow the appeal with costs, and remand the case to the lower court to be tried on merits.sen, j.13. i agree. ..... the words of their only proper meaning in order to give effect to some intention which the court imputes to the legislature from other provisions of the act. such a course can only be justified where a literal construction of the section is inconsistent with the meaning of the statute as a whole, and ..... such right; which must mean any right already acquired, and falling within sub-clause (a). the words 'or anything done or suffered before the commencement of the act' in sub-clause (b) seem to me to be governed by the previous words ' any legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right ', and ..... imposed by section 69 does not apply to a suit to enforce a right accrued before the act came into operation, by virtue of section 74 of the act. section 74 provides, so far as is relevant, that :-nothing in this act or any repeal effected thereby shall affect or be deemed to affect-(a) any right, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1939Bom410; (1939)41BOMLR899
..... .1. this is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a judgment of mr. justice somjee. there are two plaintiffs, both of which are firms, which have been registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. they financed defendants nos. 1 and 2 in relation to the purchase of large quantities of corrugated iron sheets, and they sue for a sum of over nine lakhs ..... that by the time the defect in their title is brought to their notice, limitation has run against them. this seems to me a danger which section 69 of the, indian partnership act may place in the way of perfectly honest and bona fide lenders. however, in this case, in my opinion, it is clear on the evidence that these two plaintiffs were ..... the plaintiff firms, who are carrying on business as dealers in cotton, linseed and shares, and also as moneylenders, has been duly registered under the indian partnership act. it is not suggested that there was any general partnership between them. the two agreements under which money was agreed to be lent by the plaintiffs to the defendants were in the nature of a pledge ..... written statement. the contention was that in this transaction the two plaintiffs formed a partnership within the indian partnership act and not having been registered the suit must fail. the question whether there is a partnership is a mixed question of law and fact. according to section 4 of the indian partnership act, a partnership is defined as the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1940Bom164; (1940)42BOMLR248
..... the hindu law, and it can safely be asserted that inter se the members are not partners in the sense in which that term is used in the indian partnership act (ix of 1932) ; nor can it be said that they have any special interest in the family business or any definite share therein. there is ..... of the debt on a promissory note executed in the name of the firm. if the incidents of such a firm were common to an ordinary partnership firm, there could not be much difficulty, for the procedure laid down in order xxx of the civil procedure code could be followed consistently with the requirements of ..... on the same footing in the matter of form of action for recovery of a debt due on a promissory note as an ordinary partnership firm. according to mr. purshottam, just as a partnership firm after dissolution can sue in the firm's name [see harjibmdas gordhandas v. bhagwmdas pursram i.l.r. (1921) cal. ..... name and which has accepted a promissory note in that name, must conform to the ordinary rules of procedure applicable to individuals or partnership firms in regard to the form of suits on the note. mr.purshottam's argument is that it must, for the provisions of the negotiable instruments ..... debtor is not given any discretion and cannot seek to ascertain the real payee of the note as is permissible under the english bills of exchange act, 1882. that act provides as regards payee in section 7(1) as follows :-a bill not payable to bearer, the payee must be named or otherwise indicated therein .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1940Bom257; (1940)42BOMLR497
..... that the firm was registered on november 13, 1933, under the name of pratapchand ramchand & co. the document gives the particulars which are required by section 58(i) of the indian partnership act, and it shows that at the date of registration there were three partners, viz. (1) pratapchand ramchand, (2) chhogamal dhanaji, and (3) chunilal idanji. on behalf of the defendant ..... a partner. i therefore proceed upon the footing that this firm was in fact dissolved on the death of pratapchand ramchand.6. chapter vii of the indian partnership act deals with the registration of firms. the act does not make the registration of firms compulsory but voluntary. section 58 provides the method by which a firm may be registered and prescribes what must be ..... the plaintiffs. the defendant also puts the plaintiffs to prove their allegation that they are a firm, registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. five issues were raised of which the first is, whether the plaintiffs are a firm duly registered under the indian partnership act of 1932. it was agreed by learned counsel that i should try that issue as a preliminary issue.2. in ..... was filed, and that therefore the suit was bad by reason of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act. 5. for the purpose of determining whether this argument is sound it is necessary to refer to certain section s of the indian partnership act. section 42 of the act provides that subject to contract between the partners a firm is dissolved, among other things, by .....Tag this Judgment!