Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Year: 1896 Page 1 of about 5 results (0.074 seconds)

Dec 16 1896 (PC)

Manchu Nayar and ors. Vs. Padmanabhan Nayar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-16-1896

Reported in : (1897)7MLJ26

..... carrying on business i.e., in order that such company, association or partnership may carry on the business. the business, therefore, whatever the word business ' may mean is to be carried on by those twenty persons or more.' ..... have some difficulty in seeing how there could be an association for the purpose of carrying on a business which would be neither a company nor a partnership, but i should hesitate to say that, by the ingenuity of men of business, there might not some day be formed a relation among twenty persons ..... other points as to the construction of the corresponding section of the english statute, the words of which are identical with those of the section of the indian act, underwent elaborate consideration in smith v. anderson. there james, brett and gotton, l.j.j., differed from the construction put upon the section by ..... which, without being strictly either a company or a partnership, might yet be an association. but according to all ordinary rules of construction, if the association mentioned in section 4 is not, strictly speaking, ..... a company or a partnership, it must be something of a similar kind. it must be a relation established between twenty persons or more ' for the purpose of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 16 1896 (PC)

Panchena Manchu Nayar and ors. Vs. Gadinhare Kumaranchath Padmanabhan ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-16-1896

Reported in : (1897)ILR20Mad68

..... on business,'i. e., in order that such company, association, or partnership may carry on the business. the business, therefore, whatever the word ' business' may mean is to be carried on by those twenty persons or more.' ..... some difficulty in seeing how there could be an association for the purpose of carrying on a business which would be neither a company nor a partnership, but i should hesitate to say that, by the ingenuity of men of business, there might not some day be formed a relation among twenty ..... certain other points as to the construction of the corresponding section of the english statute, the words of which are identical with those of the section of the indian act, underwent elaborate consideration in smith v. anderson l.r., 15 ch.d. 247 . there james, brett and cotton, l. jj., differed from the ..... persons which, without being strictly either a company or a partnership, might yet be an association. but according to all ordinary rules of construction, if the association mentioned in section 4 is not, strictly speaking, ..... a company or a partnership, it must be something of a similar kind. it must be a relation established between twenty persons or more ' for the purpose of carrying .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 02 1896 (FN)

Ball Vs. Halsell

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-02-1896

..... claim and the issue of the warrant, and remaining unrevoked; bailey v. united states, 109 u. s. 432 ; nor to invalidate a contract of partnership in furnishing supplies to the united states, or a promise by one to another of the partners to pay a sum, already due him under the ..... partnership articles, out of money to be received from the united states for such supplies; hobbs v. mclean, 117 u. s. 567 ; nor to ..... could not maintain a suit in the court of claims to recover, as compensation for their services in procuring the treaty and appropriation, the five percent that the indians had agreed should be paid to the attorneys by the united states, and, speaking by mr. justice miller, said: "we apprehend that the doctrine has ..... court of claims, is void, unless assented to by the united states. a contract, by which the owner of a claim against the united states for indian depredations appointed an attorney to receive and give acquittances for one-half of the money which the attorney might recover of the united states upon that claim, ..... oppression. page 161 u. s. 81 it was apparently owing to such considerations that congress, in the act of march 3, 1891, c. 538, when conferring upon the court of claims jurisdiction of claims arising from indian depredations, including such claims as had been examined and allowed by the department of the interior, and providing .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 02 1896 (PC)

Kunjo Behary Singh Vs. Madhub Chundra Ghose

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : May-02-1896

Reported in : (1896)ILR23Cal884

..... five hundred rupees, whether on balance of account or otherwise; provided that no notion shall lie in any such court:(1) on a balance of partnership account, unless the balance shall have been struck by the parties or their agents.(2) for a share or part of a share under the intestacy ..... cases, which, though not strictly speaking cases for account, are akin to them.22. in this connection it may be useful to refer to the indian limitation act. there are various cases of account provided therein (see articles 85, 88, 106); but the suit of a mortgagor to recover surplus collections received by ..... court.18. it will be observed, on a reference to section 6 of act xi of 1865, that the only class of suits for account which was then expressly exempted from the cognizance of a small cause court was partnership account. the provincial small cause court has, however, made a considerable departure in ..... shall be cognizable in the court of small causes, subject however to the exception of such suits as are specified in the second schedule annexed to the act; and the contention for the appellant is that a suit for mesne profits falls within article (31) of that schedule, and is not, therefore, ..... profits. the decision of this question depends upon the construction which should be placed upon article 31, schedule ii, of the provincial small cause courts act. that article excludes from the jurisdiction of the small cause court 'any other suit for an account including' a suit for the profits of immoveable .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 26 1896 (PC)

Nalla Karuppa Chettiar Vs. Iburam Saheb

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-26-1896

Reported in : (1897)7MLJ76

..... might be.6. the defendant was the chief partner in the firm of iburam saheb and co., which carried on business in kandy under the terms of a deed of partnership (exhibit a). the plaintiff was domiciled and ordinarily resident in british india, but he visited kandy once or twice and his family owned some immoveable property there in which, he ..... appeal the district judge tried three main questions, viz.--(i) whether notice of the suit in the kandy court was so served on the defendant as to justify the british indian court in passing a decree on the judgment of the foreign (kandy) court;(ii) whether the foreign court had jurisdiction over the person of the defendant who was domiciled and .....

Tag this Judgment!


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