Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Year: 1906 Page 1 of about 5 results (0.133 seconds)

Sep 28 1906 (PC)

Subba Narayana Vathiyar and ors. Vs. K. Ramasami Aiyar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-28-1906

Reported in : (1906)16MLJ508

..... 'it had always been the law in england that no body is liable upon a bill of exchange unless his name or the name of some partnership or body of persons of which he is one appears on the face or on the back of the bill,' and lord justice mellish shows that ..... policy alike required that the real contract should appear on the face of the instrument. we do not think that the general provisions of the indian contract act, 1872, as to the rights and liabilites of undisclosed principals were intended to alter well established rules as to negotiable instruments which in our opinion ..... of the american union, including new york, massachusetts and pennsylvania appears to reproduce in this, as in most other respects, the provision of the bill of exchange act, and may, in our opinion, be regarded as representing the preponderance of authority in america ; see sections 2, 37, 148, 200,. with regard to ..... and not entitled to sue is one of considerable importance, and must in the first place be considered with reference to the terms of the negotiable instruments act which, if applicable, are, of course, decisive. in our opinion sections 78 and 8 are clearly applicable, and it depends on the construction of ..... aiyar, j., holding that the district judge was right, while davies, j., considered that the defendant was precluded by the terms of the negotiable instruments act from denying the payee's right to sue. the question whether it is open to the defendant in a suit on a negotiable instrument to plead that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 1906 (PC)

S. Srinivasamoorthy Otherwise Called Shamanna Vs. N.T. Venkata Varada ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-11-1906

Reported in : (1906)16MLJ238

..... he could have saved so much as this from his pay merely and as even before 1864 he had been engaged in trade in cotton in partnership with others, the suggestion that his trade profits were all to be traced to what he got at the partition mast be rejected. nevertheless there ..... form of summons recites that a suit has been instituted. see form 119, schedule iv, code of civil procedure. the explanation to section 4 of the indian limitation act says that a suit is instituted, in ordinary cases, when the plaint is presented to the proper officer. sir v. bhashyam aiyangar contended that according ..... this country where according to the prescribed procedure, save in exceptional cases expressly provided for by the statute, e.g., section 22 of the indian limitation act and section 32 of the civil procedure code, the suit is commenced by the presentation of the plaint as appears inter alia from the terms of the ..... the bombay case was only intended to apply to cases where the defendant carried on business within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the british indian courts. i see no reason why we should so limit the application of this expression of opinion by the privy council. in appeal no. 109 ..... would make it doubtful whether the mere fact of carrying on business through an agent within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a .british indian court would give that court under section 17 of the code of civil procedure jurisdiction over an absent foreigner. one of the series of circumstances .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 31 1906 (PC)

Rajah Kavali Arunachella Rao Bahadur, Zemindar Garu Vs. Sri Raja Rangi ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-31-1906

Reported in : (1906)16MLJ563

..... some time under that agreement. it was held that though the valuation could not be so made because no umpire was appointed the court would carry the partnership agreement into effect by ascertaining the value of that share. in the course of his judgment hatherly, l.c., says : 'it is much more like ..... and evidence that the condition has been performed. (be. river steamer co., mitchell's claim l.r. 6 ch. app. 822, , * * * *). the indian limitation act, however, says nothing about a promise to pay, and requires only a definite admission of liability as to which there can be no reason for departing from the english ..... argument, is decisive on the point. though so far as the specific cases provided for in the explanation to section 19 of the limitation act are concerned, the indian is not the same as the english law, yet there can be no doubt that here as well as in england an acknowledgment of a ..... 519 may be. referred to by way of analogy. there two partners made an agreement containing a provision that on the determination of the* partnership one partner should purchase the share of the other at a valuation to be made by two persons, one appointed by each partner, and the ..... the plaintiff made the payments, must be held to be barred, unless exhibit b operates as an acknowledgment within the meaning of section 19 of the limitation act. the concluding portion of the settlement 'provides; 'the kavali people (the vendors) should get the zemindar's name entered in the sircar accounts, effect the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 31 1906 (PC)

Rajah Kavali Arunachella Row Bahadur Vs. Rajah Rangiah Appa Row Bahadu ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-31-1906

Reported in : (1906)ILR29Mad519

..... some time under that agreement. it was held that though the valuation could not be so made because no umpire was appointed, the court would carry the partnership agreement into effect by ascertaining the value of that share. in the course of his judgment hatherly, l.c., says 'it is much more like the ..... pay the debt and evidence that the condition has been performed. re river steamer co., mitchell's claim l.r. 6 ch. app. 822 the indian limitation act, however, says nothing about a promise to pay and requires only a definite admission of liability as to which there can be no reason for departing from ..... the argument, is decisive on the point. though so far as the specific cases provided for in the explanation to section 19 of the limitation act are concerned, the indian is not the same as the english law, yet there can be no doubt that here as well as in england an acknowledgment of a ..... . 519 may be referred to by way of analogy. there, two partners made an agreement containing a provision that on the determination of the partnership one partner should purchase the share of the other at a valuation to be made by two persons, one appointed by each partner, and the ..... when the plaintiff made the payments, must be held to be barred, unless exhibit b operates as an acknowledgment within the meaning of section 19 of the limitation act. the concluding portion of the settlement provides : 'the kavalai people (the vendors) should get the zamindar's name entered in the sircar accounts, effect the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 1906 (FN)

United States Vs. Dalcour

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-03-1906

..... 1878, an amendment was allowed page 203 u. s. 422 by which the grant was alleged to have been made to john forbes & company, a partnership consisting of forbes, james innerarity, and john innerarity, and the innerarity heirs were joined as parties. the rights of the united states, especially under the statute ..... said classes number one and number two any claim which has been heretofore presented for confirmation before any board of commissioners, or other public officers acting under authority of congress, and rejected as being fraudulent, or procured or maintained by fraudulent or improper means." we are of opinion that this proviso ..... the foreign governments from which it emanated claimed sovereignty over, or had the actual possession of, such territory." the petitioners rely upon the words of the act and upon united states v. morant, 123 u. s. 335 . that case involved lands in florida, lying, like the present, east of the ..... congress was a bar to a subsequent bill for the same purpose upon the different ground that the land was excepted from the grant as an indian reservation. united states v. california & oregon land co., 192 u. s. 355 . in that case, it was intimated that, in general ..... of limitations, were saved, and one question argued is whether this amendment could be allowed when the time for bringing suit under the act of 1860 had expired. we shall not find it necessary to discuss this question, and shall assume, for the purposes of decision, that the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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