Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Year: 1907 Page 1 of about 10 results (0.126 seconds)

Feb 12 1907 (PC)

Haji Noor Mahomed Vs. N.C. Macleod

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-12-1907

Reported in : (1907)9BOMLR274

..... the cases i have quoted above the position of a family firm carried on by cutchi memons is between that of a joint hindu family and that of a partnership under the contract act. cutchi memons acquire their fathers' estate as a hindu 'universitas.' if that estate comprises a family firm it survives to them as hindus. after born members acquire an ..... (1892) 2 vern. 277 to that of thicknesse v. bromilow (1832) 2 cr. & 425.40. it cannot, i think, be said that the family firm is a partnership within the meaning of the contract act., because such an association requires the individual assent of all the members to it -an assent which of course in the case of minors could not be ..... negotiis societitis ; and may, consequently, bind all the other partners by his acts, in all matters which are within the scope and objects of the partnership. hence, if the partnership he of a general commercial nature, he may pledge or sell the partnership property, he may buy goods on account of the partnership ; he may borrow money, contract debts and pay debt.) on account of ..... 125. ' the restrictions of this implied authority of partners to bind the partnership are apparent from what has been already stated. each partner is an agent only in and for the business of the firm; and, therefore, his acts beyond that business will not bind the firm. neither will his nets done in violation of his duty to the firm, bind it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 09 1907 (PC)

Hasanali Mahomedali Vs. Esmailji Sulemanji

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-09-1907

Reported in : (1907)9BOMLR606

..... v. howell (1847) 11 beav. 6, in re hougldon (1904) 1 ch. 623, lindley on partnership, page 532, section 43 of the indian trusts act 1882 and for the defendant 3, sub- section 26 and 27 of the same act.27. now garrett v. noble was not a case of purchase by an executor. it was one in ..... recent cases in england is to lower the rate in accordance with the small returns now yielded to capital. but i think section 23 of the indian trusts act 1882 governs such cases in india and that compound interest with half yearly rests at 6 per cent, should be allowed in this case. there are ..... suggested that the onus was on the plaintiffs, but on full reconsideration i still think that so far as concerns the first defendant section 111 of the indian evidence act applies.54. his position as executor may not have been one of active confidence in relation to his co-executor.55. but as surviving partner he ..... in no way indicates that the duty is dispensed with in cases of the present kind.39. then the defendants pray in aid section 43 of the indian trusts act, 1882. that enactment is somewhat to the same effect as the english enactment applied in houghton's case except that it does not, as does ..... a sale in such case only to be voidable at the instance of persons interested in the property sold. this corresponds with section 370 of the indian succession act 1865.19. henderson, in his commentary on that section, states that an executor or administrator shall not be permitted to be the purchaser from himself of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 02 1907 (PC)

Manikbai Jivaraj Vs. Virchand Ramchandra

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-02-1907

Reported in : (1907)9BOMLR1020

..... was brought into hotchpot as the share of the mother's capital or otherwise, it became merged in and represented the mother's interest in the partnership. its legal character as the father's share was lost, because the appellant failed to have an account of that share when she claimed as her ..... equally the law embodied in section 13 of the present civil procedure code.5. before the appellant's present claim, so far as it relates to the alleged partnership between her mother and the respondents, can be rejected on the ground of res judicata, the court must give her an opportunity of proving that ..... 25 bom. 159 : 2 bom. l.r. 872. it would be barred, provided the appellant was aware when she filed the previous suit of the partnership with her mother. explanation ii to section 13 of the code of civil procedure provides that 'any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of ..... and upon that basis claimed that an account should be taken of the partnership between her father and the present respondents.2. that suit was dismissed as being barred by limitation under article 106 of schedule ii to the indian limitation act.3. in the present suit she claims as heir of her father and ..... mother, alleging that on her father's death, the mother was admitted into the partnership: and she prays for an account of both the partnerships. so far as the partnership with the father is concerned, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 11 1907 (PC)

In Re: Manekji Pestonji Talati

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-11-1907

Reported in : (1908)10BOMLR84

..... order that might be made, possibly ensure the enforcement of its order upon the petitioner who is in shanghai.12. just as this court would have no jurisdiction unless an act of insolvency had been committed within its jurisdiction it will refuse to relieve, persons who are outside its jurisdiction unless they choose to bring themselves within it.13. see cooke ..... petition without an order of the court upon the ground that the petitioner must either be in prison or within the jurisdiction of the court under section 5 of the act.4. mr. strangman for the petitioner appeared and argued that the clerk of the court has taken a wrong view.5. the important words of section 5 are : 'any person ..... russell, j.1. in this case m.p. talati, who is residing in shanghai, china, has presented a petition to this court to have the benefit of the act. he lately carried on business in bombay, hongkong, shanghai with his partners, n.s. talati, d.s. talati and hajarimull mooltanchand. his petition is attested by his britannic majesty's .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 29 1907 (PC)

C. Venkatasubbiah Chetty Vs. T. Govindarajulu Naidu

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-29-1907

Reported in : (1908)18MLJ1

..... his own behalf and as the agent of his partner, the second defendant (assuming-the first and second defendants were partners.) the law is thus laid down in lindley on partnership, edition 7 on page 207: 'if therefore a partner only enters into written contract the question whether the contract is confined to him or whether it extends to him and ..... he entered into the contract. calder v. dobell (1871) l.r. 6 ex. ch. 486.' in our opinion, there is nothing in section 91 or section 92 of the indian evidence act which is inconsistent with these decisions, since a question as to who the contracting parties are, is not, in our opinion, one of the terms of the contract within the ..... in the well known case of beckham v. drake (1849) 2 h.l.c. 579. there drake, kinght and sturge were in partnership as type-founders, but drake was a secret partner. a written agreement relating to the partnership business was entered into between the plaintiff and knight and sturgey and for a breach of this agreement by them the action was ..... determined simply by the terms of the contract. for, supposing a contract to be entered into by one partner in his own name only, still if in fact he was acting as the agent of the firm, his co-partners will be in the position of undisclosed principals; and they may, therefore, be liable to be sued on the contract although .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 07 1907 (PC)

Hurmukhrai Amoluckchand Vs. Narotamdass Gordhandass

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-07-1907

Reported in : (1907)9BOMLR125

..... appears to be the principal business of the family, gordhundass during his life-time carried on another business in coloured cloth in his own name in partnership with other persons. the family firm of raghunathji tarachand was continued after the death of gordhandass, which occurred on the 28th of march 1904, for ..... business may consist merely of wagers on the rise or fall of the market.25. on a careful consideration of the authorities, both english and indian, referred to above, it appears clear that what the court has to do when it has to decide questions as to whether the transactions in ..... the storage of their goods. their bombay firm appears to be one of considerable influence and good repute. they have numerous constituents for whom they act as pakki adut agents. all this appears very clearly from the examination of the books off account. in the course of their moonim misrilal's ..... in bhagvandas v. kanji i l r (1905) 30 bom. 205 : :7 bom. l. r. 61 sets out the relations of the bombay shroff acting as a pukka adatia towards his constituents. mr. robertson for the defendants, although carefully refraining from making admissions, has not argued before me or suggested in ..... they are of no importance and do not affect the main issues in the case mr. robertson has discussed before me various sections of the contract act governing the relations of principal and agent and raised questions as to whether the plaintiffs as agents of gordhandass were entitled to an indemnity, whether .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 1907 (PC)

Kishan Prasad and ors. Vs. Shamrathi Singh and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-02-1907

Reported in : (1907)ILR29All311

..... bound by the same rules of law for enforcing their contracts in courts of law as any other partnership.' a similar decision was arrived at by a bench of the bombay high court in the case of kalidas kevaldas v. nathu bhagvan (1883) l. ..... '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 privilege than other traders. if they are really partners they must be ..... of a joint mitakshara family, consisting of a father and three sons, and the widow and sons of a deceased son, and carrying on business in partnership, sued on a hath-chitta for recovery of the amount payable thereunder. when the suit came on for hearing an objection was taken that all the parties ..... a person as a necessary plaintiff after the period of limitation for a suit by him alone, or with others, has expired, section 22 of the indian limitation act, 1877, would clearly apply to the right of suit of the person so added, and the suit could not be maintained without him. in madras it ..... much as the original plaintiffs could only enforce their claim in conjunction with the added plaintiffs, and the added plaintiffs were barred by section 22 of the limitation act, the claim of the original plaintiffs was also barred. garth, c.j., who delivered the judgment of the court, in the course of it observed: .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 08 1907 (FN)

Peterson Vs. Chicago, R.i. and Pac. Ry. Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-08-1907

..... former company for the purpose of service of process, even though such agents may at times also represent that company as to business done in other states. there is no partnership liability under such circumstances by which the company owning or controlling the capital stock of the other can be brought into court to respond for a tort by serving the ..... company, m. e. sebree was trainmaster of the chicago, rock island & texas railway company, and division trainmaster of the chicago, rock island & pacific railway company, with jurisdiction to chickasha, indian territory. since the purchase by the gulf company of the above-named texas lines, mr. sebree's jurisdiction extends over what were the chicago, rock island & mexico railway company and ..... the plaintiffs or either of them reside." "art. 1223. foreign corporations, how served. -- in any suit against a foreign private or public corporation, joint stock company, or association, or acting corporation or association, citation or other process may be served on the president, vice-president, secretary, or treasurer, or general manager, or upon any local agent within this state, of ..... pacific railway company." "the chicago, rock island & texas railway company never issued or sold any equipment bonds, but before it was page 205 u. s. 375 sold out under special act of the legislature to the chicago, rock island & gulf railway company, it had purchased and was the owner of between one thousand and twelve hundred freight cars of various kinds .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 1907 (PC)

Aldridge Vs. Barrow

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-22-1907

Reported in : (1907)ILR34Cal662

..... been done, the tort is a separate tort to each man who complains. if indeed there were a joint tort, for instance slander of several persons in partnership, the persons injured would have joined and maintained the action, but could have maintained the action for the joint damage only. here there is no joint damage ..... is contained in two articles which appeared in the issue of the above paper on the 17th and 19th july 1905 and in an article reproduced in the 'indian daily news' on the latter date from another paper, the 'statesman.' the articles dealt with what was known as the 'sobha bazar, murder case.' the ..... was suggested that because the libel charged the calcutta police with conspiracy it made the cause of action one. the charge of conspiring to do a wrongful act or acts may be one form of libel, no doubt, but the particular form of the libel cannot possibly affect the procedure or the plaintiffs' mode of vindicating ..... of order xvi, rule 1 these eight persons might join as plaintiffs. it was conceded that they could not have done so prior to the judicature act, and a perusal of bramwell l.j.'s judgment clearly shows that if the words of rule 1 had been identical with those of section 26 of ..... that brought by c. each is interested only in vindicating his own character and reputation. it is true that the injury may have been caused by one act of the defendant, as for instance in the case of a railway accident causing injury to several passengers, or, as is here alleged, of a collective .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 13 1907 (FN)

Hiscock Vs. Varick Bank of New York

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-13-1907

..... fact that mertens individually was the owner was in effect conceded, and the objections to the claims raised no issue in regard to it. that the partnership on some occasion may have pledged the policies in conjunction with merten's separate individual pledge had no special significance. the notes provided that the holder ..... bankruptcy, and, by operation of law, shall vest the title to such estate, both real and personal, in the assignee. but 70 a of the act of 1898 omits the provision that the trustee's title "shall relate back to the commencement page 206 u. s. 41 of the proceedings in bankruptcy," ..... of the policies were illegal, that the value of the securities held by the bank had not been ascertained according to the provisions of the bankruptcy act, and that the trustee still owned the equity. no other evidence than appearing above was offered by the trustee on the hearing before the referee under ..... xxxvi relates to "appeals," and subdivision 3 thereof provides: "in every case in which either party is entitled by the act to take an appeal to the supreme court of the united states, the court from which the appeal lies shall at or before the time of entering ..... strict performance of the common law duties of the pledgee, and, if so waived, a sale may be held without notice, demand, or advertisement. the bankruptcy act does not deprive a lienor of any remedy with which he is vested by the state law. 134 f. 101 affirmed. general order in bankruptcy no. .....

Tag this Judgment!


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