Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Court: orissa Year: 1956 Page 1 of about 1 results (0.033 seconds)

Feb 15 1956 (HC)

Harishankar Lath and ors. Vs. General Merchants Ltd.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Feb-15-1956

Reported in : AIR1956Ori186

..... .lindley l. j., in one of the above cases cited, observed that the corresponding provision, order 48a r, 11 had nothing to do with partnership rules and that the rule was intended to authorise the suing persons in the name in which they carry on business. the underlying principle being to facilitate ..... before the court there was only one person who was sued, that is, sir john burns'. the decision was based upon the fact that in the partnership action which was filed by maciver, sir john burns in his individual capacity as partner of that firm was only concerned, and that the subject matter ..... application to the case of a joint family concern carrying on business in an assumed name and that its application must be limited to cases of contractual partnership only. in that case the decree was obtained against the firm biseswarlal, but the execution was levied against the joint family property ef the appellants, ..... to a number of individuals carrying on business either under a firm name or an assumed name when those individuals do not, in law, constitute a partnership resting on contract. such a defendant can, however, be sued in his firm name or in the assumed name in which he is carrying on ..... must be considered to be a unit and must be deemed to be one person within the meaning of section 4, indian companies act, the expression 'person' is defined in the general clauses act as follows:'unless there is something repugnant in the context or in the subject, the term 'person' will include any .....

Tag this Judgment!

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