Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Year: 1881 Page 1 of about 6 results (0.386 seconds)

Jul 15 1881 (PC)

Obhoy Churn Sircar and ors. Vs. Huri Nath Roy and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-15-1881

Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal72

..... a principle upon which the courts and the legislature have generally thought it right to act, as in cases of presumption and in presuming, that a tenancy or a partnership or other state of things continues until the contrary is proved (see the indian evidence act, section 109, and taylor on evidence, 1st edn., section 123).26. i ..... was only to be in force until the collector's butwara was completed.24. then, the fact of this private arrangement having admittedly existed, and been acted upon for forty years, raises a presumption, as it seems to me, that it was of a permanent character; or at any rate throws upon the ..... on either side.22. now, it is an acknowledged fact on both sides, that the private partition was not only made, but that it has been acted upon by both parties for upwards of forty years. there is no reason, so far as i can see, why the continuance of such an arrangement ..... . it was quite within the power of the plaintiffs and of the patnidars to divide the estate between them, and once this division was made and acted on, no conduct of the plaintiffs with a third party can disturb it or affect its validity.9. i agree, therefore, in the judgment of the ..... -annas plaintiff-proprietors and the patnidars of the twelve-annas share, by which, as between them, the whole estate was partitioned, and this arrangement was acted on by possession following according to the partition, then i hold that the plaintiffs cannot set aside this arrangement by simply relying on a butwara to which .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 07 1881 (PC)

In Re: Morgan and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-07-1881

Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal633

..... partner of the goods of the firm is justifiable-if the circumstances are such as to show that his possession is for purposes strictly connected with the partnership, then the order and disposition section will not apply. for the goods are not in his sole possession, order or disposition. his actual possession is ..... one of the reputed owners of the goods. the lease to him was not void, but only voidable, and lake having knowingly entered into a contract of partnership with an infant, could not deprive him of his rights as a partner. it was argued, indeed, that the case came within the mischief against which ..... that the insolvents did let them out would strengthen the belief of the creditor that the insolvents were the actual owners. the interest of the partners in the partnership property was such as to be within their, order and disposition, and they did deal with and dispose of it; hornsby v. miller (1 e. & ..... other, bond fide, to carry on the business ostensibly as his own, on the bankruptcy of the latter, the share of the dormant partner in the partnership stock-in-trade cannot be dealt with as in the possession, order, or disposition of the bankrupt as reputed owner with the consent of the true owner ..... and might be dealt with under section 125 of 12 and 13 vict., c. 106, a section similar in its terms to the 23rd section of the indian insolvent act. but this decision was reversed by the court of exchequer chamber; the chief baron adopted the words of baron parke in load v. green (15 m .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 05 1881 (PC)

Soodist Lall Vs. Bungsee Singh and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Aug-05-1881

Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal739

..... the time of making the contract, disclose that he was contracting not only on behalf of himself, but also on behalf of the other members of the partnership. under these circumstances, we think that this ground of appeal must also fail.8. then the fourth ground of appeal is, that the cause of action ..... alone. if this were not the case, there would, undoubtedly, be much in the objection, that the plaintiff, whether regarded as a member of the partnership or as a member of a hindu family, could not alone maintain this suit. but we think that the fact of the mortgage-bond having been executed ..... his co-partners as plaintiffs; see also jones v. robinson (1 ex., 454).7. the same principle of law is embodied in section 230 of the indian contract act, which enacts, that, 'in the absence of any contract to that effect, an agent cannot personally enforce contracts entered into by him on behalf of his ..... the same situation at the time of the disclosure of the real principal as if the agent had been the contracting party. this rule is most frequently acted upon in sales by factors, agents, or parties, in which cases, either the nominal or real contractor may sue.' the same principle is applicable to ..... the property situate in jirhoot, but also against the property sitnated in the district of bhagalpore. now, according to the old code of. civil procedure, act viii of 1859 (section 12[in like manner, if the property be situate within the limits of different districts, the suit may be brought in any court .....

Tag this Judgment!

1881

Carite Vs. Trotot

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-01-1881

..... jan. 11, 1871, copponex sold his interest in the firm business and this property to his partners for $10,000 cash, they assuming the debts of the partnership; and on dec. 30, 1872, moulor sold his interest to carite for $55,000, in addition to the assumption by the latter of the encumbrance in ..... a cause, which results in the establishment of some page 105 u. s. 762 claim against the husband's estate susceptible of execution, by some authentic act, or by judicial process to enforce it, that a neglect or failure to insist upon its execution is deemed conclusive evidence that it is the intention ..... to confer upon the wife, in respect to her future acquisitions, the fruits of her own industry, and the savings of her own economy, the right to act separately from her husband, as though she were sole, and the right becomes fixed and vested by its actual exercise. holmes v. barbin, 13 la.ann. ..... property, free of all subsequent encumbrances. it was executory process which is authorized (code of practice, art. 732) "when the creditor's right arises from an act importing a confession of judgment, and which contains a privilege or mortgage in his favor," which is the case (art. 733) "when it is passed before a ..... in any manner by the issue of any writ; that in further pursuance of said conspiracy and fraud, tremoulet, on may 22, 1873, pretending to act as his agent, made to celestine carite a pretended sale of the said plantation and property for a sum sufficient to cover the amount alleged to be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 07 1881 (PC)

Bibee Solomon Vs. Abdool Azeez and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-07-1881

Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal687

..... on large business operations in calcutta, other parts of british india, and cashmere. he died, nearly fifty years ago, intestate. his business was carried on in partnership with khajah mussijee and koodoor mullick. he left two sons, khaluckjee and ackbarjee, and a daughter, fatima, who was the wife of his partner khajah mussijee. ..... shares, worth rs. 20,000 ; 10 bombay bank shares, worth rs; 6,000; 20 paris municipal debentures, worth rs. 2,000 ; and 25 east indian railway shares, worth rs. 7,500. and he also says: 'at the time of moheeoodeen's death the balance of the account was against us. it ..... sanction the compromise that statement was brought prominently forward as the basis of the proposed arrangement;3rd.-that not only bibee rubbia, but the court, acted upon the assumption that this statement of the value of moheeoodeen's property was substantially correct; and.4th.-that the executors might and ought to ..... was a pretty large balance.' at the time of the compromise rohim shaw was in calcutta, and acted in it as the defendants' agent, as abdool azeez admits.65. is it conceivable that rohim shaw, the gomastah, had made no inquiry of doorga ..... negotiations until the matter of the payment arose.'55. but he says :-'soonaoollah was managing the negotiations '; and that 'soonaoollah and rohim shaw were acting jointly on his behalf in the matter of the settlement.' neither soonaoollah nor rohim shaw has been called as a witness.56. in this state of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 1881 (PC)

Ramsebuk and ors. Vs. Ramlall Koondoo

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-28-1881

Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal815

..... , and the defendant would succeed or not according as he proved that plea. this is the reason why both by the common law procedure act of 1860 and the indian code of civil procedure, misjoinder of plaintiffs can never be fatal to a suit, though nonjoinder of plaintiffs may. now, as i understand, ..... has, however, not been extended to the presidency small cause courts---rep. note). that section is a reproduction of section 19 of the common law procedure act, 1860, and applies (for good reasons) to cases of misjoinder only. there can never be any injustice in allowing too many plaintiffs to sue together, ..... it considered that the nonjoinder was a bond fide mistake, the amendment would be made, for the express purpose of protecting the plaintiffs' rights, and of preventing the limitation act from working injustice. (see lakin v. watson (2 cr. & m. 685), brown v. fullerton (13 m. & w. 556, and cases there cited at ..... , any one or more may, of course, be authorized by the rest to act as their agent or agents in any business transaction; but when a joint family, or any members of it, carry on a trade, in partnership, and contract with the outside public in the course of that trade, they have ..... no greater privileges than any other traders. if they are really partners, they must be bound by the same rules of law for enforcing; their contracts in courts of law as any other partnership. the defendant .....

Tag this Judgment!


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