Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Year: 1924 Page 1 of about 24 results (0.096 seconds)

Feb 14 1924 (PC)

Muhammad Abdul Jalil Vs. Moti Ram

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-14-1924

Reported in : (1924)ILR46All509

..... bithal das, who as guardian of his minor son kishen gopal also figures with another man as a proprietor having a direct beneficial interest in the partnership. but the accountability of the company to bithal. das was an accountability to him alone both as regards his beneficial interest and as regards the ..... that the company was an illegal association inasmuch as it consisted of more than 20 persons and therefore violated the conditions of section 4 of the indian companies act of 1882 which prohibits the formation of an unregistered company in excess of that number. if, in our opinion, the appellant is wrong in ..... the above mentioned agreement. he contends that on an investigation and enumeration of the persons beneficially interested in the partnership, their number amounts to more than 20. the number of the various members of the partnership enumerated as they themselves thought correct, amount exactly to 20. mr. piari lal banerji, however, contends that ..... been accurately described in the agreement. when these principles are applied to the document in question, it becomes clear that the partnership certainly did not exceed 20 and probably did not exceed 18 persons. agreeing with the learned subordinate judge, we hold that the ..... partnership was not invalid in its inception and that the appellant and the representatives of har prasad are accountable to the plaintiff .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 26 1924 (PC)

Dwarkadas Marwari Vs. Jadab Chandra Ganguly

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-26-1924

Reported in : (1924)ILR51Cal761

..... ceased and had the effect of divesting the said half share of the moveables of its character as partnership property and to such property the provisions of section 262 of the indian contract act, relating to partnership property would no longer apply. the subordinate judge was perhaps not right in the view that this conduct of jadab chandra ganguly amounted to waiver or ..... came within the purview of section 47, civil procedure code and was appealable; that the whole of the sale-proceeds must, in view of section 262 of the contract act, go towards the payment of the partnership debts and further that the application for rateable distribution was not maintainable inasmuch as the judgment-debtors of the two decrees are not precisely the same. the ..... objecting to the rateable distribution, mainly on the grounds that the sale-proceeds should go to satisfy the decree of sitaram, as that decree was for money due from the partnership that the judgment-debtors in the two execution cases were, different and therefore the prayer for rateable distribution was not maintainable.9. the learned subordinate judge, by orders passed on ..... between themselves and sitaram marwari. on the 19th march, 1921, sitaram marwari put in a petition objecting to the rateable distribution, on the ground that his decree was against the partnership and therefore the sale-proceeds must go to satisfy his decree, but thereafter on the 9th april, 1921, he put in a further petition agreeing to the rateable distribution.8 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 17 1924 (PC)

(Peddi Reddi) Jogi Reddi Vs. Parem Chinnabireddi and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-17-1924

Reported in : AIR1925Mad1195

..... in section 239 of the indian contract act. it may be that the parties in this case might have combined their property, labour or skill; but their combination cannot be said to have gone ..... is unknown to hindu law. at most, it can only amount to what may be called a partnership between these various members and if so, the division of the property should be made according to the provisions of section 253(1) of the indian contract act. if this principle is accepted, the 3rd defendant will get for his share all the properties, which ..... -fourth of the family properties is wrong in law and is not warranted by the legal character of the relationship of the parties to the suits which only shows a 'partnership.' the document in question is called a division settlement karar. under this document certain properties were exclusively given to jogi reddi for his enjoyment and he was given one-fourth ..... originally stood in his name. there are two objections to the acceptance of this view. in the first place, it is not quite clear whether the relationship of the parties cornea strictly, within the definition of a partnership, as given .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 17 1924 (PC)

Peddi Reddi Jogi Reddi Vs. Paneen Chinnabireddi and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-17-1924

Reported in : 90Ind.Cas.1016

..... section 239 of the indian contract act. it may be that the parties in this case might have combined their properties, labour or skill, but their combination cannot be said to have gone ..... is unknown to hindu law. at most, it can only amount to what may be called a partnership between these various members and if so, the division of the property should be made according to the provisions of section 253(1) of the indian contract act. if this principle is accepted, the 3rd defendant will get for his share all the properties which ..... -fourth of the family properties is wrong in law and is not warranted by the legal character of the relationship of the parties to the suit which only shows a 'partnership'. the document in question is called a division settlement karar. under this document certain properties were exclusively given to jogi reddi for his enjoyment and he was given one-fourth ..... originally stood in his name. there are two objections to the acceptance of this view. in the first place, it is not quite clear whether the relationship of the parties comes strictly within the definition of a partnership as given in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 02 1924 (PC)

Hirachand Amersey Vs. Jayagopal Gangabishan

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-02-1924

Reported in : AIR1925Bom69; (1924)26BOMLR1049

..... execute these releases. this raises an interesting point of law. under section 251 of the indian contract act each partner who does any act necessary for 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 ..... may be from his past transactions and supported by his books as to who this partnership firm consisted of, and who generally acted for them and signed on the firm's behalf. if so, a statutory declaration or its indian equivalent might have ' been most useful. but in fact none such was shown ..... i am not prepared to hold the affirmative. further, the powers of any individual partner in this respect might be regulated or restricted by the partnership articles, but no such articles were produced. and if it be said that under the exception to section 251, notice of an usual restriction ..... were duly authorised by their copartners to receive the mortgage moneys, no independent evidence, either from bankers or merchants or by production of the partnership books on the partnership deed, was forthcoming. there was not even any statement from the other alleged partners, nor from the mortgagor. it may be that the ..... refused to perform his promise in its entirety, and consequently the purchaser was justified in putting an end to the contract under section 39 of the indian contract act, and was not obliged to tender the conveyance or the purchase money.16. in this connection i may refer to nott v. riccard (1856) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 02 1924 (PC)

In Re: Purshottam Bhanji and Co.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-02-1924

Reported in : (1925)27BOMLR223

..... is in accordance with rule 2 of the rules framed with reference to the manner in which the application for registering a firm is to be made under the indian income-tax act it is hardly necessary to refer to any authority. but it seems that this point was raised in in the matter of lalla hardeo das i.l.r. (1923 ..... (14) of section 2 of the indian income-tax act, 1922 (here in after in these rules referred to as the act), register with the income-tax officer the particulars contained in the said instrument on ..... in time at the date on which it wan presented.3. the expression 'registered firm' is defined by section 2(14) of the act in these terms :- 'registered firm ' means a firm constituted under an instrument of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners of which the prescribed particulars have been registered with the income -tax officer in the prescribed manner ..... proper authority under powers conferred upon that authority under section 59 of the act. these rules are to be found in the born bay government gazette 1922, part i, at page 1496 rule 2 of these rules is in these terms:-any firm constituted under an instrument of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners may, for the purposes of clause .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 02 1924 (PC)

In Re: Purshotam Bhanji and Co.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-02-1924

Reported in : 86Ind.Cas.851

..... (14) of section 2 of the indian income tax act, 1922 (hereinafter in these rules referred to as the act), register with the income tax officer the particulars contained in the said instrument on application ..... is in accordance with rule 2 of the rules framed with reference to the manner in which the application for registering a firm is to be made under the indian income tax act. it is hardly necessary to refer to any authority. but it seems that this point was raised in in the matter of lalla mal-hardeo das, cotton spinning mills ..... was in time at the data on which it was presented.3. the expression 'registered firm' is defined by section 2(14) the act in these terms:'registered firm' means a firm constituted under an instrument of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners of which the prescribed particulars have been registered with the income tax officer in the prescribed manner ..... the proper authority under powers conferred upon that authority under section 59 of the act. these rules are to be found in the bombay government gazette 1922, part i, at page 1496. rule 2 of these rules is in these terms: any firm constituted under an instrument of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners may, for the purposes of clause .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 27 1924 (PC)

Dhanaji Jhelaji Vs. Gulabchand Pana

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-27-1924

Reported in : AIR1925Bom347; (1925)27BOMLR409; 87Ind.Cas.812

..... :-(1) an assignment by any partner of his share in the partnership, either absolute or by way of mortgage or redeemable charge, does not, as against the other partners, ..... firm without the consent of all the partners.12. the common law with regard to the position of an assignee of a partner has now been codified by section 31 of the english partnership act, 1890, as follows ..... only give a right of action to sue for a dissolution under section 254 (5) of the indian contract act 'when a partner, other than the partner suing, is guilty of gross misconduct in the affairs of the partnership or towards his partners.' therefore, if the office doors are closed against a partner, so that ..... other partners as to cause an immediate dissolution of the partnership.11. with due respect it is difficult to see how that construction can be placed on section 253, sub-cl. (6) of the indian contract act, which merely state that no person can introduce a new partner into a ..... r. (1884) cal. 669. the head-note runs :-the effect of clause (6) of section 253 of the contract act is not to render an assignment of a share in a partnership concern illegal or void as between the parties to the assignment, but only so fur void as between those parties and the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 1924 (PC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Phillip Seddon Mellor

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-06-1924

Reported in : AIR1924Bom361; (1924)26BOMLR366

..... tax for the year 1922-23 the basis of the assessment was the profits of the year ending september 30, 1921. during that year mr. mellor's share in the partnership was three-sixteenths. at the time of the assessment for the year 1922 23, namely december 6, 1922, the constitution of the firm had changed, and mr. mellor had become ..... , profession or vocation. we are, therefore, thrown back on the question: what was mr mellor's total income for the previous year? it is unfortunate that the drafting of the act has rendered it possible for the most ingenious arguments to be raised on the question how an individual partner in a registered firm is to compute his total income for ..... of the year ending september 30, 1921. if the firm had not been registered then it would also have been liable to pay super-tax under scetion 55 of the act, and consequently any new member who might have come into the firm since september 30, 1921, would be liable as a member of the firm to pay super-tax. but ..... norman macleod, c.j.1. this is a reference by the commissioner of income tax under scetion 66(2) of the indian income tax act of 1922 in the matter of the assessment for super-tax of mr. p.s. mellor. the assessee was a partner in messrs. p. chrystal & co., a registered firm. for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 18 1924 (PC)

Nariman Rustomji Mehta Vs. Hasham Ismayal

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-18-1924

Reported in : AIR1925Bom137; (1924)26BOMLR1261; 85Ind.Cas.191

..... the value of the whole of the partnership property is taken as the basis for determining the amount or value of the property affected by the decree. that cannot be done; and there is no ..... this contention. that was a case of partition; but on principle it can make no difference on this point whether it is a partition suit or a partnership suit. it is the value of the appellant's share and not the whole of the property that should be looked to. the petitioner can succeed only if ..... petition that the value is more than rs. 10,000.5. it is contended that the property for this purpose must be taken to be the whole of the partnership property. no authority is cited in support of that proposition. the decision of this court in de silva v. de silva (1904) 6 bom. l.r. ..... to his majesty in council, the trial court had dismissed the suit, and in appeal this court passed a decree for dissolution, and directed an account of the partnership to be taken. the case was remanded to take accounts. under section 110, therefore, of the code of civil procedure, if the petitioner, who is the original ..... the remedy by way of review, the time taken up from april 13, 1923, up to february 11, 1924, should be excused under section 5 of the indian limitation act and reliance is placed upon the decision in brij indar singh v. kanshi ram .2. in the present case, having regard to the fact that the petitioner .....

Tag this Judgment!


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