Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Year: 1911 Page 1 of about 11 results (0.077 seconds)

Aug 26 1911 (PC)

Gokul Krishna Das and ors. Vs. Shashi Mukhi Dasi

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Aug-26-1911

Reported in : 13Ind.Cas.23

..... been conducted on the assumption that the plaintiff was a partner. consequently, no question arises, whether the partnership was or was not dissolved in 1887, under clause (10) of section 253 of the indian contract act. that section provides that, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, the relations of partners ..... are determined by the death of any partner. there is no direct evidence to show what was the contract between the parties in this respect at the incepsion of the partnership: but ..... as to the extent to which the accounts are to be taken. no question of limitation obviously arises. as the partnership had not been dissolved before suit, article 106 of the limitation act, 1877, would have no application harrison v. delhi and london bank 4 a. 437 in other words, as ..... put in foster v. hodgson 19 ves. 183 so long as a partnership continues, the statute of limitation does not apply at all ..... an account for the sums so withdrawn. it follows, consequently, that the defendants are liable to render an account from the commencement of the partnership business, that unless fraud is established, the ordinary items relating to purchases and sales in respect of the business are not to be challenged, but .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 1911 (PC)

Sanka Krishna Murthi, Minor, by Guardian Ad Litem Sriram Lakshmikantha ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-24-1911

Reported in : (1911)21MLJ620

..... in a position to trade as freely as other firms. i am not, however, prepared to apply this rule to minors who are not trading in partnerships but are sole owners of the business without a separate consideration of the law affecting guardian and minors, etc, the extent to which a minor is liable ..... insist that the assets are applied in the first instance in satisfaction of the partnership debts and if the proper steps are taken the right can be made available for the benefit of the creditors. in india section 247, indian contract act, which allows a minor to be a partner and declares the share of the ..... for the reason given by batchtlor j. in his judgment that we must be guided by the analogy of the law of partnership as joint hindu family business is a peculiar sort of partnership.5. in england according to the judgment of the house of lords in lovell and christmas v. beauchamp (1894) a.c ..... for or usually done in, carrying on the business of such a partnership as that of which he is a member binds his co-partnership to the same extent as if he were their agent duly appointed for that purpose ..... minor in the property of the firm to be liable for the obligations of the firm, has much the same effect and renders section 251 so far applicable. under section 251 each partner who does any act necessary .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 1911 (PC)

Sanka Krishnamurthi Vs. the Bank of Burma, Limited

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-24-1911

Reported in : (1912)ILR35Mad692

..... be in a position to trade as freely as other firms i am not however prepared to apply the rule to minors who are not trading in partnerships but are sole owners of the business without a separate consideration of the law affecting guardians and minors and the extent to which a minor is ..... insist that the assets should be applied in the first instance in satisfaction of the partnership debts, and if the proper steps are taken this right can be made available for the benefit of the creditors. in india section 247, indian contract act, which allows a minor to be a partner and declares the share of the ..... , or usually done in, carrying on the business of such a partnership as that of which he is a member binds his co-partners to the same extent as if he were their ..... for the reason given by batchelor, j., in his judgment that we must be guided by the analogy of the law of partnership as a joint hindu family business is a peculiar sort of partnership. in england according to the judgment of the house of lords in lovell and christmas v. beauchamp (1894) a.c. 607 ..... minor in the property of the firm to be liable for the obligations of the firm, has much the same effect, and renders section 251 so far applicable. under section 251 each partner who does any act necessary for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 1911 (PC)

Sanka Krishnamurthi Vs. the Bank of Burma Ld.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-24-1911

Reported in : 14Ind.Cas.389

..... in a position to trade as freely as other firms. i am not, however, prepared to apply this rule to minors, who are not trading in partnerships but are sole owners of the business, without a separate consideration of the law affecting guardians and minors, etc., and the extent to which a minor is ..... insist that the assets are applied, in the first instance, in satisfaction of the partnership debts and if the proper steps are taken, this right can be made available for the benefit of the creditors. in india, section 247, indian contract act, which allows a minor to be a partner and declares the share of the ..... , or usually done, in carrying on the business of such a partnership as that of which he is a member binds his co-partner to the same extent as if he were their ..... for the reason, given by batchelor, j., in his judgment, that we must be guided by the analogy of the law of partnership. a joint hindu family business is a peculiar sort of partnership.6. in england, according to the judgment of the house of lords in lovell and christmas v. beauchamp (1894) a.c. ..... minor in the property of the firm to be liable for the obligations of the firm, has much the same effect and renders section 251 so far applicable. under section 251, each partner who does any act necessary for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 03 1911 (FN)

Oklahoma Vs. Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Ry. Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-03-1911

..... that the american express company is a partnership, composed of individuals who are citizens and residents of new york; that what were formerly the territory of oklahoma and the indian territory constitute the present state of oklahoma; that the lands in the indian territory, owned by various indian tribes, were, by agreement or treaties ..... that defendants threaten to continue in the said violation unless restrained, and in continuing so to do said defendants, and each of them, have committed acts which amount to a surrender and an abandonment of their corporate right to do business in interstate commerce in the carriage of intoxicating liquors, and for ..... of the bill) have made payment of the special tax required of liquor dealers under the laws of the united states; that, by the above act of congress of june 16th, 1906, it was made a condition precedent to the admission of oklahoma into the union that, "in its constitution, ..... , barter, or the giving away of liquors and intoxicants of any kind or quality, and that, pursuant to said agreement and treaties, congress, by the act of june 16th, 1906, 34 stat. 267, c. 3335, 3, made it a condition of the admission of oklahoma into the union as a state ..... the opinion of the court. the state of oklahoma, by the present suit, invokes the original jurisdiction of this court for its protection against certain acts alleged to have been done or threatened to be done by the respective defendants in derogation of its rights as a state. the case has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 13 1911 (FN)

Flint Vs. Stone Tracy Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-13-1911

..... would render that law invalid. there is a sufficiently substantial difference between business as carried on in the manner specified in the act and as carried on by partnerships and individuals to justify the classification. there are distinct advantages in carrying on business in the manner specified in the corporation tax ..... and other things inhere in the advantages of business thus conducted, which do not exist when the same business is conducted by private individuals or partnerships. it is this distinctive privilege which is the subject of taxation, not the mere buying or selling or handling of goods, which may be ..... arbitrary in the fact that it taxes a business when carried on by a corporation, and exempts a similar business when carried on by a partnership or private individual, as to place it beyond the authority conferred upon congress. as we have seen, the only limitation upon the authority conferred ..... law over carrying it on by partnerships or individuals, and it is this privilege which is the subject of the tax, and not the mere buying, selling or handling ..... of national revenue be destroyed, except as to the business in the hands of individuals or partnerships. it cannot be supposed that it was intended that it should be within the power of individuals acting under state authority to thus impair and limit the exertion of authority which may be essential .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 1911 (PC)

Sheik Ibrahim Tharagan and anr. Vs. K.R. Rama Iyer and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-30-1911

Reported in : (1911)21MLJ508

..... of limitation to the institution had expired. but the decision seems to be based on the ground that all the members of the family were carrying on a partnership trade and that in such a case all the partners should join as plaintiffs. and reliance was placed on romsebuk v. randall i.l.r. (1881) c ..... . 815 which was also a case of partnership business carried on by the members of a family. see also imamudin v. liladhar i.l.r. (1892) a. 524. in adaikkalam chetti v. marimuthu i.l.r ..... by the plaintiff in his capacity as manager of the family; but this, it is argued, is insufficient. there has been considerable conflict of authority in the indian courts on the point raised, but we are of opinion that the decision of the privy council in kishen prasad v. har narain singh (1911) 21 m.l ..... ) a. 524 as resting on the ground that all who are trading as partners must join in a suit relating to the partnership business and observed that the other members of the family interested in the partnership business need not be joined as plaintiffs. the case of alagappa chatty v. vellian chetty i.l.r. (1894) m. ..... the family; that the payment of rs. 650 was not made prior to the suit, and that both the payment and the deposit were not bona fide acts but the result of collusion between the defendants nos. 1 to 15 and the 16th defendant with a view to defraud the other members of thei6th defendant's .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 15 1911 (FN)

Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-15-1911

..... as may hereafter join in the agreement at the request of the trustees herein provided for." "3d. a portion of the stockholders and members of the following corporations and limited partnerships, to-wit:" "american lubricating oil company." "baltimore united oil company." "beacon oil company." "bush & denslow manufacturing company." "central refining co. of pittsburg. " "chesebrough manufacturing company." "chess carley ..... stock to the amount of $97,250,000. the bill contained allegations referring to the development of new oil fields, for example, in california, southeastern kansas, northern indian territory, and northern oklahoma, and made reference to the building or otherwise acquiring by the combination of refineries and pipelines in the new fields for the purpose of restraining ..... demonstrate that which needs no demonstration by a few obvious examples. take, for instance, the familiar cases where the judiciary is called upon to determine whether a particular act or acts are within a given prohibition, depending upon wrongful intent. take questions of fraud. consider the power which must be exercised in every case where the courts are called ..... of the classes of things forming a part of interstate or foreign commerce. the words "to monopolize" and "monopolize" as used in 2 of the anti-trust act reach every act bringing about the prohibited result. freedom to contract is the essence of freedom from undue restraint on the right to contract. in prior cases where general language has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 25 1911 (PC)

Kanji Dwarkadas Vs. Haridas Purshottam

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-25-1911

Reported in : (1911)13BOMLR1211; 12Ind.Cas.897

..... of january 1902. in the beginning of that year, new rules of the bombay high court came into operation and one of them, rule 361 permitted a partnership to file a suit in the name of the firm. being satisfied that that was the intention of the plaintiffs, i made an order on the 14th ..... in cutch, said that in all large and important sea port towns, those who carry on business as insurers nominate a small number of respectable and prominent indian merchants at those ports and they are called mahajans.12. it seems to me that it would be most unreasonable to hold that in every case under ..... specifically instructed and authorised to insure these goods in bombay. and i hold it as proved that in taking out this policy of insurance the plaintiffs were acting under instructions from the owners of the goods and were authorised by them to insure the said goods. they paid for the goods which they purchased in ..... null and void, and that they were not entitled to recover under the policy. on the evidence before me i hold as proved that the plaintiffs were acting as commission agents for the three merchants for whom they purchased goods. they as such agents put the same on board the ali madut, and consigned them ..... executed on the 7th of february 1899 and is ex. f in the case. the goods belonging to the three merchants, for whom the plaintiffs' firm was acting as commission agents, were insured for rs. 3,500. it appears that 'ali madut' met with bad weather and was carried out of its course, and, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 1911 (PC)

Raja Bahadur Shivlal Motilal Vs. the Tricumdas Mills Company Limited

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-22-1911

Reported in : (1912)14BOMLR45

..... its memorandum and artioles of association. every joint stock company, or nearly every one, i imagine ... , has its partnership deed under which it acts. those articles of association and that partnership deed are *pen to all who are minded to have any dealings whatsoever with the_ company, and those who so deal ..... in its judgment says (p. 332):-we may now take for granted that the dealings with these companies are not like dealings with other partnerships, and that the parties dealing with them are bound to read the statute and the deed of settlement. but they are not bound to ..... s agent and the plaintiff and not between the company's agent and the plaintiff's munim, the provisions of section 229 of the indian contract act cannot be made applicable and the plaintiff fixed with the knowledge of the alleged incompetency of the defendant-company.27. the english law on ..... and commission agent, through his munim and other servants in bombay. the defendant is a joint stock company incorporated under the provisions of the indian companies act of 1882 and is now in liquidation. the principal director of the company and the senior partner in the firm of its secretaries, treasurers ..... articles of association appointed a managing director, but the directors, who were named in the articles and signed the memorandum of association, refused to act and passed a resolution that the company should not carry on business or allot shares. notwithstanding this resolution, the managing director and one of .....

Tag this Judgment!


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