Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Page 5 of about 36,012 results (0.301 seconds)

Jul 08 1942 (PC)

Minor Periakaruppan by Mother and Guardian, Rakkayee Ammal Vs. T. S. S ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1943Mad190; (1942)2MLJ563

..... he says, 'therefore on the facts proved in this case suppayya ambalam must be held liable on the principle of holding out laid down in section 2'8 of the indian partnership act.' in view, however, of the definite language used in paragraph 43, it would seem that the district munsiff was of the opinion that the 1st defendant's father's estate ..... to pass decrees in favour of the plaintiffs on the footing of a holding out by the petitioner's father, which would, make him liable under section 28 of the partnership act for the sums 6f money advanced. the suits were brought on the facts as they seemed to the plaintiffs, who deduced their legal relationship from the conduct of the 2nd ..... by the government servants' conduct rules from engaging in business without the permission of the government, and that therefore all the transactions that were entered into on account of the partnership were null and void. the learned advocate for the petitioner cites sundrabai v. manohar : air1933bom262 . in support of his contention. although the government servants' conduct rules contain this provision and ..... prejudiced by the fact that the suits were not brought on the footing of a holding out. moreover, the learned district munsiff seems to have found that there was a partnership; though certain sentences two paragraphs later would rather suggest the contrary. in paragraph 43 of his judgment, the learned district munsiff definitely says, 'i have come to the conclusion that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 17 1942 (PC)

Ramchandra Lalbhai Vs. Chinubhai Lalbhai

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1943)45BOMLR1075

..... arrangement. this is not a case of an agreement of partnership where nothing has been done.14. (m.c. setalvad. see section 19 of the indian partnership act, 1932. the alleged partnership is not registered and the present suit is not maintainable. moreover, partnership is not pleaded.)15. there is no privity between the ..... paid to chinubhai lalbhai and brothers, limited. mr. taraporevala very wisely did not press this point when he was confronted with section 69 of the partnership act, and he realised that in pressing his argument he was endangering his whole suit.53. the next submission of mr. taraporevala is that the ..... deciding whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation, the principle that the court must adopt is the same that underlies section 73 off the indian contract act. under that section the court is empowered to award damages when there is a breach of contract for any loss or damage caused to ..... the joint family with the lal mills; and (3) the security of the joint family property given to the banks under section 202 of the indian contract act, where the agent has himself an interest in the property which forms the subject-matter of the agency, the agency cannot, in the absence ..... to revoke the authority of a substituted agent. to my mind the contention of mr. taraporevala is clearly erroneous. section 195 of the indian contract act provides that in selecting a substituted agent under section 194, an agent is bound to exercise the same amount of discretion as a man .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 24 1942 (PC)

Pannaji Devichand Vs. Lakkaji Dolaji

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1943Bom156; (1943)45BOMLR181

..... distribution could be made to satisfy both the decrees. with great respect to the learned judges, it is difficult to see how section 49 of the indian partnership act could apply to those facts. this section occurs in the chapter relating to the dissolution of a firm, and it says that where there are ..... was, however, held that rateable distribution could not be allowed in view of the provisions of section 49 of the indian partnership act, which are similar to those of section 262 of the indian contract act. the learned judges there interpreted the provisions of that section as meaning that although a decree against a firm could be ..... appeared in the suit, and there is nothing in that rule to show that personal execution against the partner cannot be taken unless the property of the partnership was exhausted. the provisions of o. xxi, rule 50, do not seem to have been brought to the notice of the court. i am unable ..... no two different debts, but only one debt created by the decree. there is no question, therefore, of executing the decree against the assets of the partnership before executing it against the separate property of the partner. on the other hand, by virtue of the provisions of o. xxi, rule 50, the ..... , rule 7 provides that where a summons is served in the manner provided by rule 3 upon a person having the control or management of the partnership business, no appearance by him shall be necessary unless he is a partner of the firm sued.3. now, applying these provisions to the facts .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 1942 (PC)

Bhagwanji Morarji Goculdas Vs. the Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1943)45BOMLR691

..... question of transferalbility of this particular kind of property and not to the nature of the property itself.5. under section 69, sub-section (3), sub-clause (b), of the indian partnership act, the power of the official assignee to realise the property of an insolvent partner is not affected by the prohibitions contained in sub-sections (1) and (2). section 52 of ..... the important insignia of property, but they are not the only ones.4. i must construe the word 'property' as used in sub-section (3) of section 69 of the indian partnership act in its widest sense, and there is no doubt that in that widest sense 'property' means all legal rights which a person can own. if a chose in action or ..... to realize unliquidated damages for a breach of contract. as pointed out by the learned chief justice in appaya nijlingappa hattargi v. subrao babaji teli : air1938bom108 , section 69 of the indian partnership act is designed to encourage registration by imposing a disability in the case of firms which are not registered. sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 69 forbid the bringing of ..... . 1's contention is that having regard to section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable. it is common ground that the partnership firm of kotibhaskar, amin & co. was not registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act. it is admitted by the first defendant company that this partnership was dissolved before the suit was filed. therefore the suit is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 1943 (PC)

Jaldu Manikyala Rao Vs. Jaldu Pydayya

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1943Mad639; (1943)2MLJ130

..... court is not necessary for bringing about, the dissolution. such a dissolution would occur on the happening of any of the conditions mentioned in sections 42 and 43 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the second class of cases is where the intervention of the court is necessary in order to dissolve a firm while it is continuing. the conditions on the happening ..... defendant was dissolved by what their lordships described as writ and plaint claiming dissolution. no doubt the expression 'writ' applies to its indian counterpart 'summons.' the position therefore is that whatever the pleading in this case may be, the partnership between the parties was dissolved on the date of the plaint and there was nothing for the court to do in that ..... partners respectively. the action in that case as described by the learned district judge contained a claim for an account and a winding up of partnership. it was argued before us, that the proper provision of the act applicable to such a case was article 17-b of the second schedule which deals with claims incapable of valuation. such a contention is ..... a suit for an account under section 7, clause (iv)(f) of the court-fees act of 1870. section 265 of the contract act which was the part of the act dealing with partnership provides that where a partner is entitled to claim a dissolution of partnership, or where a partnership has terminated, the court may in the absence of any contract to the contrary, wind .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 12 1943 (PC)

Gouri Dutt Ganesh Lall Firm Vs. Madho Prasad and Others

Court : Privy Council

..... applicable first in the payment of his separate debts and the surplus only is available for the payment of the debts of the firm. (see s. 262, indian contract act, now reproduced in s. 49, indian partnership act, 1982). to that extent the liability of the original debtor had been changed, and, in their lordships' view, a fresh and different liability had been substituted ..... the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner. in the present case it was submitted the promisee forebore nothing in consideration ..... creditor. such is the result of s. 43, indian contract act, which enacts: when two or more persons make a joint promise, the promisee may, in the absence of express agreement to the contrary, compel any one or more of such joint promisors to perform, the whole of the promise. similarly s.25. indian partnership act, provides: every partner is liable, jointly with all ..... for that which formerly existed. that novation may in india as in england constitute a good consideration for a fresh promise appears from s. 62, indian contract act, when it says: .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 30 1944 (PC)

In Re : Sarupchand Hukamchand

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1945Bom258; (1945)47BOMLR159

..... show that this firm had any outside place from which the firm's activities were controlled. under sections 58(6) and (c) and 60 of the indian partnership act it is necessary for a firm, which is registered in british india, to state its principal place of business, and when there is any change to ..... .j.1. this is a reference made by the commissioner of income-tax under section 66(2) of the indian income-tax act before its amendment in 1939. the assessees are a partnership firm doing money-lending business. their firm is registered in british india. in the certificate of registration the principal place of business ..... facts of the case the court found that no portion of the control of the business was from british india and therefore the residence of the partnership was not in british india. applying those tests to the facts here it is clear that, apart from the statement in the affidavit filed on ..... that there may be two such places of residence, but the second residence must not merely have a delegation of management of some portion of the partnership business but should be a delegation of some portion of the management of the business as a whole. it was observed that the actual residence of ..... the negative. in my opinion the calcutta case was rightly decided and it correctly brings out the true interpretation of section 4(2) of the indian income-tax act, before its amendment in 1939. we answer the second question as settled by us, in the negative.15. the commissioner's reference to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 1944 (PC)

B. R. Naik Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : [1945]13ITR124(Bom)

..... control and management over the foreign business, since the partner is the agent of the firm for the purposes of the business of the firm : (see section 18 of the indian partnership act).in my opinion, the view of the tribunal is incorrect. no doubt, the existence of an overriding power of control and management is a very relevant consideration; but who, or ..... these words :'whether in the circumstances of the case and on a true construction of the deed of partnership the assessee-firm was rightly held to be resident in british india within the meaning of section 4-a (b) of the indian income-tax act ?'the conclusion of residence thus rests on two factors : (1) 'whether in the circumstances,' and (2) 'on a ..... is destructive of the whole reference, which proceeds on the basis that we are dealing with a partnership firm, as indeed is the case when the partnership deed is considered.the point referred to us arises in this way : section 4-a of the indian income-tax act sets out the circumstances in which individuals, hindu undivided families, firms or other associations of persons ..... true construction of the deed of partnership.' i shall deal with the second factor of the question first.the relevant clauses of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 09 1944 (PC)

Kashiram Bhagshet Shete Vs. Bhaga Bhaushet Redij

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1945Bom511; (1945)47BOMLR470

..... members of the joint family to outside creditors who had dealings with the joint family, they are to be governed also by the principles of the law of partnership under the indian contract act (now the indian partnership act), in so far as the said principles are not opposed to the principles of hindu law.11. the case of samalbhai v. someshvar came up for consideration ..... -payments in respect of such debts so as to extend the period of limitation should also be determined having regard to the principles of the law of partnership laid down in the indian contract act (now the indian partnership act) in so far as they are not opposed to the principles of hindu law applicable to the joint hindu family trading firms.14. this brings me ..... i have made in the earlier portion of this judgment. if in the case of the joint hindu family trading firms the principles of the law of partnership laid down in the indian contract act (now the indian partnership act) are to be applied in so far as they are not opposed to the principles of hindu law applicable to joint hindu family trading firms, the ..... managing member or karta of the joint family for the purposes of the family business, regard should be had also to the principles of the law of partnership laid down in the indian contract act (now the indian partnership act) in so far as they are not opposed to the principles of hindu law which are applicable to joint hindu family trading firms, and that in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 01 1944 (PC)

Periambala Chettiar Vs. Muhammad Ghouse Saheb

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1945Mad263; (1945)1MLJ279

..... .4. it has, however, been argued that under section 19 of the indian partnership act the general rule of implied agency applicable to partnerships is subject to the condition enacted in section 22 that one partner cannot bind the others by his acts unless they are done in the firm name or in any other manner expressing ..... the firm. but it was not necessary that it should also purport to be so done. section 22 is evidently based on section 6 of the english partnership act, 1890, which has been considered to be only declarat6ry of the common law.5. on the facts here, there can be little doubt that abdul ..... latif made the payment in question with the intention of binding the firm. as has been stated, the debt was a partnership debt and abdul latif was in charge of the business. he entered the payment in the books of the firm, and the appellant, too, credited it ..... of our urgency for the tobacco trade and for our family expenses.' it is the appellant's case that the executants were carrying on tobacco trade in partnership and that abdul latif one of the partners having made the part payment and endorsement, the debt is kept alive against the other partner, the respondent, ..... that abdul latif not having signed the0 endorsement as a partner the respondent cannot be bound. it is true that there was no provision in the indian contract act corresponding to section 22 but, in my opinion, that section has not effected any change in the law; for, it does no more than state .....

Tag this Judgment!


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