Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Page 2 of about 36,012 results (0.100 seconds)

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!

Nov 11 1936 (PC)

S.H. Patel Vs. Husseinbhai Mahomed

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!

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!

Jan 25 1937 (PC)

Messrs. Hoosen Kasam Dada Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : [1937]5ITR182(Cal)

..... the per sons who are said to be parties nos. 17,18,19 and 20 cannot, properly speaking, be partners by reason of the provisions of section 30 of the indian partnership act. but again, says mr. gupta, although, strictly speaking, these persons could not be partners in this concern nevertheless the provision of section 30 entail that they should be treated as ..... capital of the wakf vests in the almighty. such being the case, i do not appreciate how a wakf cant be partner in a firm, for section 4 of the indian partnership act defines 'partnership' as the relation between person who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them ..... the instrument or copy, as the case may be, the following certificate, namely, this instrument of partnership (or this certified copy of an instrument of partnership) has this day been registered with me, the income-tax officer, under clause (14) of section 2 of the indian income-tax act, 1922. this certificate of registration has 'effect from the - day of april up to 31st ..... march, 19'. it seems to me that the income-tax officer is only empowered to register a partnership or rather the partnership which has been put forward or nothing else.mr. gupta says that .....

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!

Jul 23 1937 (PC)

Appaya Nijlingappa Hattargi Vs. Subrao Babaji Teli

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!

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!


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