Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Year: 1917 Page 1 of about 24 results (0.061 seconds)

Feb 02 1917 (PC)

Kali Das Chaudhuri and ors. Vs. Srimati Danpadi Sundari Dassee

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-02-1917

Reported in : 43Ind.Cas.893

..... him. 13. if i had any doubt about this, that doubt would be removed by referring to the provisions of the indian contract act and seeing what the definition of the term partnership' is in section 269 of that act, which provides: 'partnership is the relation which subsists between persons who have agreed to combine their property, labour or skill in some business, and to ..... agreement: 'from the year 1894, the plaintiff ceased to be a member of the alleged partnership (vide section 253, clause 7, of the indian contract act) and in fact, he retired from the partnership which had not been entered into for any fixed term (clause 8 of section 253, indian contract act). it is, therefore, clear that the present suit, viewing it as one for winding ..... to accede to the contention of the learned advocate-general that there has yet been no dissolution of the alleged partnership between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, and that, therefore, the suit is not barred by article 103 of the indian limitation act.' the view attributed to lord lindley was emphasised by him in the case of betiemann v. betjemann (1895) 2 ..... defendants gives effect to the true intentions of the legislature, as is clear from the provisions of the indian contract act relating to the dissolution of partnerships [sections 239, 233(7) and (8)]. in the case before us, the plaintiff alleges that he retired from the partnership on a specified date; he seeks a declaration that in so far as he is concerned the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 1917 (PC)

isap Ahmed Mograria and ors. Vs. Abhramji Ahmadji Mograria and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-30-1917

Reported in : (1917)ILR41Bom588

..... joint gift made by a christian father to his sons; and to a partnership which brought together property inherited from a common ancestor. article 123 applies to cases governed by the indian succession act; bat sections 187 and 190 of the act are quite general. section 190 applied only when the right of a dead ..... banu (1893) 21 cal. 157 sections 187 and 190 of the indian succession act.35. now article 127 does not in terms apply to hindus only, nor does it say it will apply to such non-hindus only as have adopted ..... . for this we have article 127. article 123 does not apply to hindus and mahomedans; but it applies only to those persons who are governed by the indian succession act (x of 1865), e.g., parsees, domiciled europeans: see shaik moosa v. shaik essa (1884) 8 bom. 241 and mahomed riasat ali v. hasin ..... generally. under the mahomedan law, a female takes absolutely. there can be no meaning in extending the above articles to them. where, therefore, the indian limitation act speaks of a mahomedan female, it has reference to families which have adopted the hindu mode of living. the same reason ought to be assigned to ..... the learned pleader, mr. thakor, that he has no prospect of success unless he can be allowed to show that article 127 of the indian limitation act is not applicable to mahomedan parties. unfortunately for the learned pleader's contention there is a long series of decisions by division benches of this court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 12 1917 (PC)

Grandhe Gangayya Vs. Grandhe Venkataramiah and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-12-1917

Reported in : AIR1918Mad37; 43Ind.Cas.9

..... partnership and the taking of the partnership accounts, and there is nothing in the act which confers such right of suit on a person merely by reason of his being entitled ..... is open to a member of a hindu family, who has become divided in status, to sue for dissolution at partnership entered into between the managing member of the family and strangers, when the family was joint.2. sections 254 and 265 of the indian contract act only contemplate suits by one of the partners (as defined in section 239) for dissolution of ..... the divided members. what their lordships were considering was the question of fact as to when a partnership became dissolved so as to attract the provisions of article 106 of the limitation act, and i entirely agree with the observations of courts trotter and srinivasa aiyangar, jj., in ramanathan chetty v. yegappa chetty 32 ind. cas. 427 to the effect that their ..... lordships cannot be taken to have overruled the decisions of the indian courts as to the position of a co-parcener in relation to a partnership entered into by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 20 1917 (PC)

Grande Gangayya Vs. Grande Venkataramiah and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-20-1917

Reported in : (1918)34MLJ271

..... 239) for dissolution of partnership and the taking of partnership accounts and there is nothing in the act which confers such right of suit on a person merely by ..... from the mere standpoint of convenience i think it would be mischievous to hold that a coparcener can interfere with the affairs of the partnership simply because he has on partition got a specific share in the interest of one of the partners and to treat him as a ..... hindu family who has become divided in status to sue for dissolution of partnership entered into between the managing member of the family and strangers, when the family was joint.2. sections 254 and 265 of the indian contract act only contemplate suits by one of the partners (as denned in section ..... divided members. what their lordships were considering was the question of fact as to when a partnership became dissolved so as to attract the provisions of article 106 of the second schedule of the limitation act and i entirely agree with the observations of coutts trotter, and srinivasa aiyangar, jj., in ramanathan ..... chetti v. yegappa chetti (1915) 30 m.l.j. 241 to the effect that their lordships cannot be taken to have overruled the decisions of indian courts as to the position of co-parceners in relation to a partnership .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 20 1917 (PC)

Grande Gangayya Vs. Grande Venkataramiah and Three ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-20-1917

Reported in : (1918)ILR41Mad454

..... partnership and the taking of the partnership accounts and there is nothing in the act which confers such right of suit on a person merely by reason of his being entitled ..... open to a member of a hindu family who has become divided in status to sue for dissolution of a partnership entered into between the managing member of the family and strangers when the family was joint.2. sections 254 and 265 of the indian contract act only contemplate suits by one of the partners (as defined in section 239) for dissolution of ..... the divided members. what their lordships were considering was the question of fact as to when a partnership became dissolved so as to attract the provisions of article 106 of the second schedule of the limitation act and i entirely agree with the observations of coutts trotter, j., and srinivasa ayyangar, j., in ramanathan chetty v. yegappa chetty : (1916)30mlj241 to the ..... effect that their lordships cannot be taken to have overruled the decisions of indian courts as to the position of co-parcener in relation to a partnership entered into by one of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 22 1917 (PC)

Dhulipalla Kanakam Alias Sitaramayya, Minor, by Mother and Guardian Ra ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-22-1917

Reported in : AIR1918Mad101; 43Ind.Cas.76

..... continuance of the business, must have the right to deal with that property. we do not think that the family property was an asset of the partnership. the definition given in section 20 of the english partnership act is against holding properties not directly associated with the business as assets of the firm. therefore, the 2nd defendant, regarded as one to whom section ..... property.2. mr. narayanamurthi in an elaborate argument contended that the objections of the 2nd defendant are governed by section 247 of the indian contract act and that the liability, if any, should be restricted to the assets of the partnership; on the other hand mr. somasundaram, for the 1st respondent, argued that the liability of the 2nd defendant is under the hindu ..... the appellant. prima facie, his case would be governed by section 247 of the act. the asset of the father in which he had a share was brought into the new partnership and consequently he must be regarded as a person admitted to the benefits of the partnership in which his elder brother and the 3rd defendant were the active partners. if this ..... property was not liable for the partnership debt. the reason of the rule is this: any liability incurred by a minors unenforceable and void against him. if he is to be held liable at all, it can only be to the extent to which by statute he is charged with liability. section 63 of the contract act furnishes one illustration, section 247 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 13 1917 (PC)

Rehmat-un-nissa Begum Vs. John Price

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-13-1917

Reported in : (1918)20BOMLR714

..... he filed his suit was not entitled to claim a dissolution was based on the continuance of the partnership involved in the terms of the partnership agreement and on section 252 of the indian contract act. and the court proceeded to express the opinion that, even if it had jurisdiction, it would have ..... the defendants' written statement. the condition described in section 254 (6) of the indian contract act, 1872, is thus established, and it is provided that in this event the court may, at the suit of a partner, dissolve the partnership. what, then, is there in the circumstances of this case to deprive the ..... should be a sleeping partner without any voice in the control and conduct of the business, so his advisers naturally demanded the insertion in the partnership instrument of a provision which would secure him against the risk of extravagant working.4. to this the defendants assented, and a clause was ..... was not to exceed 1/7 rupees, but it excludes the possibility of any objection to its admissibility under section 91 or 92 of the indian evidence act. the one qualification is that the rate did not only include the three items of quarrying, dressing, and hauling. all therefore that has ..... refused to declare the partnership dissolved at any period earlier than the completion of the work. the first and the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 19 1917 (PC)

M. Ponnusami Pillai and anr. Vs. Chidambaram Pillai and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-19-1917

Reported in : (1918)35MLJ294

..... two members of a hindu trading family must be deemed to be terminated by the death of one of the members.5. section 253(10) of the indian contract act declares that a partnership is dissolved by the death of a partner. there is no principle of hindu law that a joint family is extinguished by the death of one member, but ..... khan i.l.r. 1901 a. 331. in this view it is unnecessary to invoke the doctrine of lis pendens which applies under section 52 of the transfer of property act to immoveable property, a class of property into which a simple money decree cannot be treated as falling.4. the next question is whether a power of attorney given by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1917 (PC)

Chhotalal Aditram Travadi Vs. Bai Mahakore Widow of Girdharlal Sevakra ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-18-1917

Reported in : (1917)ILR41Bom466

..... be shown by parol evidence, though the terms which govern such relationship appear to be in writing; 'and again in the same paragraph: 'the fact of partnership may be proved by parol evidence of the acts of the parties, without producing the deed. 'the leading authority in england for those propositions is the statement of baron alderson in augustien v. challis (1847 ..... be proved by oral evidence. according to my reading, section 91 does not go to that length, and the english law as indicated in taylor on evidence, upon which the indian evidence act is known to have been largely founded, does not support the appellant's contention. in paragraph 405 of taylor (10th edn.) it is stated: 'the fact of the existence ..... was separate or joint property under the partition deed, while the partition deed not having been registered cannot be looked at. it is urged that section 91 of the indian evidence act prevents the court from concluding that there was partition at any time which led to a separation in interest of members of this family, because it is known that there ..... . the chief justice has stated with abundant authority a proposition, of the soundness of which i think there can be no doubt. i agree that under section 91 of the indian evidence act, as contended by the appellant here, the courts were precluded from seeking the terms of the partition in the document which was inadmissible for want of registration. i agree .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1917 (PC)

Chhottalal Aditram Travadi Vs. Bai Mahakore and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-18-1917

Reported in : 40Ind.Cas.83

..... be shown by parol evidence, though the terms which govern such relationship appear to be in writing;' and again in the same paragraph: 'the fact'of partnership may he proved by parol evidence of the acts of the parties, without producing the deed.' the leading authority in england for those propositions is the statement of baron alderson in augustien v. challis (1817 ..... be proved by oral evidence. according to my reading, section 91 does not go to that length, and the english law as indicated in taylor on evidence, upon which the indian evidence act is known to have been largely founded, does not support the appellant's contention. in paragraph 405 of taylor (10th edition) it is stated:-- 'the fact of the existence ..... was separate or joint property under the partition deed, while the partition deed not having been registered cannot be looked at. it is urged that section 91 of the indian evidence act prevents the court from concluding that there was partition at any time which led to a separation in interest of members of this family, because it is known that there ..... . the chief justice has stated with abundant authority a proposition, of the soundness of which i think there can be no doubt. i agree that under section 91 of the indian evidence act, as contended by the appellant here, the courts were precluded from seeking the terms of the partition in the document which was inadmissible for want of registration. i agree .....

Tag this Judgment!


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