Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Year: 1922 Page 1 of about 13 results (0.060 seconds)

Mar 09 1922 (PC)

Gopala Chetty Vs. Vijayaraghavachariar

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-09-1922

Reported in : (1922)24BOMLR1197

..... the institution of the first suit, and the whole of the balance before the decree in the first suit. the learned judge held that though a general partnership account was barred by the indian limitation act and by the decision in the first suit, there was nevertheless a right in a partner to sue his other partners for his share of the assets ..... of narasimhachariar, namely in april 1910, and that therefore the suit was barred by article 106 of schedule i of the indian limitation act, 1908, which provides that a suit for accounts and a share of the profits of a dissolved partnership must be brought within three years of the date of dissolution. the respondent did not appeal. but on april 30 of ..... share of certain moneys received by the plaintiff as part of the assets of the said partnership. the high court in appeal hold that the respondent's claim to an account of the partnership dealings was not barred by limitation because under section 17 of the indian limitation act (act xv of 1877) when a person, who, if living, would have a right to sue ..... . this board agreed with the decision of the high court that the claim was not barred by the indian limitation act, but their lordships thought that the decree given by the high court was too wide, and directed an account to be taken of the partnership transactions. they made no observations on the particular point now under consideration, and the case may be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 20 1922 (PC)

Subramonian Vs. Lutchman

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-20-1922

Reported in : (1923)25BOMLR582

..... ought to have been rejected.16. it has already been stated that the receiver was not under the order appointing him authorised to create any mortgages ofthe partnership property, and therefore the claim of the plaintiff fails both in respect of the original equitable deposit and the subsequent deposit in august, 1910.17. for ..... property of the chetty firms of m.l.r.m.a. and a.l.a.s.r.m. pending the decision of the suit for dissolution of partnership, with power to collect outstanding and do all things necessary for the realisation and preservation of the assets of the said firm.3. the receiver so ..... inasmuch as it was effected by an instrument in writing which was admittedly not registered and relied upon as. 17 and 49 of the indian registration act, 1908; and (2) that oral evidence was not admissible, as the memorandum of july 15, 1908, constituted the contract between the parties (section 91 ..... and appropriate evidence of their agreement, it would be the instrument by which the equitable mortgage was created, and would come within section 17 of the registration act.13. this board in pranjivandas mehta v. chan ma phee (1916) l.r. 43 indap 122 laid down the law as follows:the law upon this ..... , indian evidence act i of 1872). the appellants, however, contended that though the terms of the deposit were embodied in a written document that document was a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 1922 (PC)

Sanyasi Charan Mandal Vs. Krishnadhan Banerji

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-17-1922

Reported in : (1922)24BOMLR700

..... of it 'the defendant cannot now contend that it is only the receiver (and not any individual creditor) who can deal with his share of the partnership properties.' no property belonging to the minor could vest by the adjudication in the receiver, but what would vest in him would be the right (if ..... though there may be this right, in fact it is not claimed by the defendant. on the contrary, the written statements deny his membership of the partnership; this denial was made on his behalf during his minority, and it was adopted by him when he attained his majority. this attitude he still maintains, ..... the obligations of the firm.21. to bring this section into play it must be proved that the minor has been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. this is a fact to be established by evidence, and though it was neither pleaded nor made an issue at the trial, the high court, ..... the first court.15. the distinction between an ancestral business and one started like the present after the death of the ancestor, as a source of partnership relations is patent. in the one case these relations result by operation of law from a succession on the death of an ancestor to an established ..... grounds of liability. before the subordinate judge the claim seems to have been rested on general principles rather than on the specific provisions of the indian contract act. thus in the grounds of appeal it is contended that the defendant and his four brothers having all along lived as members of an undivided hindu .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 26 1922 (PC)

The Superintendent of Stamps Vs. Chimanlal Lalbhai

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-26-1922

Reported in : AIR1923Bom237; (1923)25BOMLR112; 73Ind.Cas.718

..... of the other two partners of the firm of messrs. lalbhai dalpatbhai and co. which was before the said separation a joint family firm.7. when we turn to the partnership deed it appears from the schedule attached to that document that there is a list of the shares given which refers to the full number of 2880 shares.; and in ..... after the severance of interest in 1918. it appears that in 1920 the brothers reduced to writing the terms of the partnership, which apparently was formed soon after this partition, and these shares are referred to in that deed as partnership property.3. thereafter in 1922 by means of the two instruments in question, the eldest brother chimanbhai, in whose name the ..... and on behalf of the parties interested. we are of opinion that these two instruments exhibits a and b are chargeable under article 45 of schedule i to the stamp act, as instruments of partition.2. it appears that a partition among these three brothers was effected in november 1918. there was no deed of partition and the shares in question ..... .j.1. this is a reference under section 57 of the stamp act of 1899. the question referred to us is:- with what stamp duty is each of the instruments referred to in paragraph 1 of the reference chargeable? the instruments are exhibits .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 05 1922 (PC)

In Re: Mahomed Hasham and Co.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-05-1922

Reported in : AIR1923Bom107; (1922)24BOMLR861; 75Ind.Cas.203

..... he may be advised to set aside, if he can, this mortgage of 1st october 1921 and he may also take such other proceedings in the partnership suit as may be necessary. further, if the present applicant abdul sakoor gets in a fit condition to give evidence, it will be quite easy ..... order is made out in the names of individual partners. but because we have that different procedure in india one must not think that an ordinary partnership firm is a legal entity. we only sue a firm on the original side in the firm's name for the purpose of convenience and because ..... ; and also notwithstanding sale if before sale a receiver has been appointed.13. there is one further matter in this particular case. there was a partnership suit brought by the applicant abdul sakoor against his partner premchand alleging in effect that he had been grossly defrauded by premchand. on the 19th december ..... extent. the draftsman seems to have copied some of the english forms relating to limited liability companies and used them for the affairs of an ordinary partnership firm. the result is that at any rate to an english conveyancer some of the conveyancing is most extraordinary. we are introduced to some thing which ..... against this firm which are more or less denied. but if there is anything substantial in them and if they can bring their case within the indian insolvency act by some future application, they will of course be at liberty to do so notwithstanding my present order for annulment of the adjudication order.38. .....

Tag this Judgment!


Oklahoma Vs. Texas

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-01-1922

..... . frank sharrock, charles h. murphey, r. o. hammill, caleb b. bledsoe, m. harve foshee, edna sharrock, lovie r. lear, george bradfield, c. o. keeley, _____ ellis, _____ lambert, lambert & ellis (partnership). lena h. slack, louie l. varner, lena hammill, sarah e. davis, gertrude hamill, lena n. kent, eva c. wilson, jennie hamill. alva a. varner, wm. t. davis, earl n. walford ..... incidental to her ownership of lands on the northerly bank. the federal mining laws have never applied to the parts of the river bed lying within and south of the indian pasture reserve formerly called the big pasture. certain petitions of intervention claiming under lease from oklahoma, or based on locations made under the mining laws, are dismissed. decree adjudicating proprietary .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 16 1922 (PC)

Chunilal Someshvar Bhatt Vs. Vithaldas Karsandas

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-16-1922

Reported in : (1922)24BOMLR502

..... chitti in respect thereof. the defendant admitted the payment of rs. 1,000 on the 19th november 1917, and alleged that that amount was to be accounted for in the partnership account at the end of the year, and he further contended that the equitable mortgage and the agreement relied upon by the plaintiff did not come within the jurisdiction of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 05 1922 (FN)

United Mine Workers Vs. Coronado Coal Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-05-1922

..... the governing executive bodies. undoubtedly, at common law, an unincorporated association of persons was not recognized as having any other character than a partnership in whatever was done, and it could only sue or be sued in the names of its members, and their liability had to be ..... iowa; that mined in iowa comes in competition with missouri and coal mined in missouri comes in competition with kansas, arkansas, and the indian territory. they are all related to one another. they are all competitors with one another, and it is but just and fair that ..... 10453-10463. iowa -- code 1897, 5049-5051. kansas -- gen.stats.1909, 9675-9680; gen.stats.1915, 11654-11659. kentucky -- stats.1903, 4749-4755. louisiana -- acts 1898, act no. 49. maine -- rev.stats.1903, c. 40, 30-36. maryland -- pub.laws 1904, art. 27, 43-48. massachusetts -- pub.laws 1902, c. 72 ..... -- rev.stats. 1908, c. 140, 4. iowa -- code 1897, 5050. kansas -- gen.stats.1915, 11657. kentucky -- stats.1903, c. 130, 4750. louisiana -- acts 1898, act no. 49, 5. maryland -- supp. anno.code 1914, art. 27, 53. montana -- rev.code 1907, 8455. nebraska -- comp.stats.1913, 3570. nevada -- rev.laws 1912, ..... . employers, 102 neb. 768. wisconsin -- stats.1913, 1747h. 3. right given to labor unions to sue to enjoin infringement of registered union label or trademark: arkansas -- acts 1905, act 309, 7. colorado -- mills' supp. 1891-1905, 2985; rev.stats.1908, 6848. florida -- gen.laws 1906, 3172. idaho -- rev.code 1908, 1453. illinois .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 10 1922 (PC)

Leicester and Co. Vs. S.P. Mullick

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-10-1922

Reported in : 80Ind.Cas.498

..... 74 l.t. 164 : 44 w.r. 295 : 60 j.p. 218. that was an action the object of which was to obtain the usual partnership account of profits of a bookmaker's business, and the learned judge holding that it had not been made out that the plaintiff intended that the business should be ..... fashion, but the law upon this point is correctly stated by fletcher, l.j.'--supports the contention that since the law discourages betting, persons whose partnership business is to bet cannot come into a court of law as a firm. lord justice farwell on this point observed that he was not prepared to ..... facts of this case and they are simple. the plaintiffs sue as a firm and are described in the cause-title as carrying on business in co-partnership as turf accountants, a business otherwise known as that of bookmakers, which consists of gambling on horse races, the profits of which they share. the ..... the event on which any wager shall have been made.15. this, it will be observed, is in language almost identical with section 30 of the indian contract act. the learned late lord justice's views are expressed, among others, in the following passages:16. in my opinion too little attention has been paid ..... say that the statutes in force in calcutta to which i have referred, discourage betting. the public gambling act at least recognises it. nor am i prepared to hold that persons who enter into a partnership for the purpose of making agreements not forbidden but recognised by the law, though unenforceable at law, are .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 17 1922 (PC)

N. Buch and Co. Vs. Gordhandas Mavji

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-17-1922

Reported in : AIR1923Bom92; (1922)24BOMLR991

..... 2. the plaintiffs carry on business as commission agents and merchants in piece goods. the defendants at all times material to this suit carried on business in partnership in piece-goods in the name of laxmidas gordhandas. two out of the said cases arrived in bombay per s. s. city of london on august ..... to the defendants, and that, even if the property did pass, the goods were not accepted by them within the meaning of section 118 of the indian contract act and the defendants were justified in refusing payment for the goods.12. as regards shipment, the contract (ex. b) provides that the goods should be ..... to repudiate the contract and to refuse payment for the goods as the defendants had not accepted the goods within the meaning of section 118 of the indian contract act. the first part of section 118 is as follows:-where here has been a contract, with a warranty, for the sale of goods which, at ..... , but they are entitled to damages only on the basis of the rate prevailing at the date of the breach. the material sections of the indian contract act bearing on this subject are sections 82 and 83. the combined effect of those sections is that where goods agreed to be sold are not ascertained ..... 1 k.b. 459.14. in the present case, as i have held before, the goods offered to the defendants answered the description in the agreement. the act of the sellers in sending the invoices to the buyers amounted to a notification of appropriation by the sellers (the parchim [1918] a.c. 157; benjamin on .....

Tag this Judgment!

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