Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Year: 1925 Page 1 of about 28 results (0.077 seconds)

Feb 13 1925 (PC)

Vallabhdas Meghji Vs. Cawasji Framji and Co.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-13-1925

Reported in : (1925)27BOMLR568

..... petitioner prays that the appointment of vithaldas damodar govindji as sole arbitrator under section 9 (6) of the indian arbitration act made by the respondents may be set aside and that it may be declared that the power of appointing arbitrators under the partnership agreement having once been exercised by both the partners has been exhausted and that reference to vithaldas damodarj govindji ..... dies or becomes incapable or refuses to act, but that where both the arbitrators refuse to act, the arbitration comes to an end and that there is no power in the ..... damodar govindji.2. the whole argument as to the revocation of the appointment of vithaldas damodar govindji is based on section 9 of the indian arbitration act. it has been argued that that section applies only where one of the arbitrators ..... be revoked. in the alternative the petitioner asks that a tit and proper person nominated by the petitioner may be appointed as an arbitrator on petitioner's behalf to act along with the said vithaldas .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 20 1925 (PC)

Ram Protap Champia Vs. Durga Prosad Champia

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-20-1925

Reported in : (1926)28BOMLR217

..... dated july 19,1923. mr. justice greaves based his decision primarily upon the view that the provisions of the award relating to the new partnership were quite unauthorised and invalid, the appellate court based their decision upon the ground that it was really impossible according to the statute law ..... ever taken place; whether it was valid if it had; and who, on either view, were the persons interested and in what shares in the partnership, which was treated as one constituted by the agreement of november 16, 1916; and secondly: whether the allegations made by the appellant against durga ..... hardatroy, an event then apparently regarded as imminent. the property, dealt with by this agreement in terms extends to hardatroy's interest in the partnership, although that interest appears to have been disposed of, and differently, by theagreement already set forth, it is stated in this second agreement that ..... share of five annas. by an indenture dated october 1, 1916, and made between hardatroy and the appellant, it was agreed that this partnership should continue for twenty years there is no furtker reference in the appellant's plaint to the two annas' share which belonged to amlokchand at ..... schedule under the superintendence and control of the judge who has seizin of the suit and of the judge disposing of business under the indian arbitration act; partly upon an order of reference and partly under an agreementi.23. their lordships desire to reserve their opinion upon the question whether .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 1925 (PC)

Shanmugha Mudali Vs. Kumaraswami Mudali

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-16-1925

Reported in : AIR1925Mad870

..... and the object of the suit is to recover the monies due to the plaintiff on the closing of the partnership. unless the object of the main transaction is to commit an offence, made punishable by the indian penal code, there can be no objection to enforcing the terms of a contract of this kind, which is ..... not of much help, as there is not much discussion on the question of what constitutes lottery.3. the word 'lottery' is not defined either in the indian penal code, or act v of 1844, nor in the english statutes. a definition has been attempted in vol. xv of halsbury, section 605, p. 299 apparently with reference to ..... that any person keeps a lottery office, at which the public are invited to join and to pay, within the meaning of the english acts or section 294-a of the indian penal code. in other words, it is not that every lottery constitutes an offence but the keeping of a lottery office, which is a ..... of the main transaction, i.e., the chit-fund. if it is an offence, it must be one punishable under section 294-a of the indian penal code. this section and act v of 1844 are both founded on the terms of 42 geo. iii-c. 119 and 4 geo. iv-c. 60. i agree with ..... lord chancellor (lord selborne) and lords blackburn, hatherley and watson (vide my learned brother's judgment) on the question whether the transaction was illegal under the lottery acts are very brief. in halsbury vol. xv, p. 300, the case is cited as authority for the proposition that when the scheme has for its object the carrying .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 1925 (PC)

Shanmuga Mudali Vs. Kumaraswami Mudali

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-16-1925

Reported in : (1925)ILR38Mad661

..... the object of the suit is to recover the moneys due to the plaintiff on the closing of the partnership. unless the object of the main transaction is to commit an offence made punishable by the indian penal code there can be no objection to enforcing the terms of a contract of this kind which is ..... much help as there is not much discussion on the question of what constitutes lottery.3. the word ' lottery ' is not defined either in the indian penal code or act v of 1844 nor in the english statutes. a definition has been attempted in volume xv of halsbury, section 605, page 299, apparently with reference to ..... that any person, keeps a lottery office at which the public were invited to join and to pay, within the meaning of the english acts or section 294-a of the indian penal code. in other words, it is not that every lottery constitutes an offence, but the keeping of a lottery office which is a ..... of the main transaction, i.e., the chit fund. if it is an offence it must be one punishable under section 294-a of the indian penal code. this section and act v of 1844 are both founded on the terms of 42 geo. iii, clause 119 and 4 geo. iv, clause 60 i agree with ..... lord chancellor (lord selborne), and lords blackburn, hatherley and watson (vide my learned brother's judgment) on the question whether the transaction was illegal under the lottery acts are very brief. in halsbury, volume xv, page 300, the case is cited as authority for the proposition when the scheme has for its object the carrying .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 1925 (PC)

Shanmuga Mudaliar Vs. Kumaraswami Mudali

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-16-1925

Reported in : 90Ind.Cas.420

..... and the object of the suit is to recover the monies due to the plaintiff on the closing of the partnership. unless the object of the main transaction is to commit an offence made punishable by the indian penal code, there can be no objection to enforcing the terms of a contract of that kind which is ..... not of much help as there is not much discussion on the question of what constitutes lottery.3. the word 'lottery' is not defined either in the indian penal code or act v of 1844 nor in the english statutes. a definition has been attempted in volume xv of the halsbury's laws of england, section 605, p. ..... be said that any person keeps a lottery office at which the public were invited to join and pay, within the meaning of the english acts or section 294-a of the indian penal code. in other words, it is not that every lottery constitutes an offence, but the keeping of a lottery office which is a ..... conduct of the main transaction, i.e., the chit-fund. if it is an offence, it must be one punishable under section 294a of the indian penal code. this section and act v of 1844 are both founded on the terms of 42 geo. 3 ch. 119 and 4 geo. iv ch. 60. i agree with my ..... the lord chancellor (lord selborne) and lords blackburn, hatherley, and watson (vide my learned brother's judgment) on the question whether the transaction was illegal under the lottery acts are very brief. in halsbury's laws of england, volume xv, p. 300, the case is cited as authority for the proposition 'when the scheme has for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 1925 (PC)

Khoday Gangadara Sah Vs. A. Swaminadha Mudali and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-17-1925

Reported in : AIR1926Mad218

..... purported to do, namely, take into his business as partners the defendants 1, 2 and 3. no such permission was obtained by the plaintiff and, therefore, his act of entering into the partnership agreement was an act forbidden by the law and, therefore, void and, therefore, unenforcible. if this contention should be upheld, it follows that the plaintiff's suit must fail. and ..... me.18. in the case of karsan v. gatlu shivaji [1913] 37 bom. 320 sir basil scot, c.j., and chandavarkar, j., held that the indian legislature was by no means blind to the possibility of partnerships being entered into by licensees in which other persons may become interested in the sale of liquor and that the object of granting the license ..... and the highest court in that state has decided that having regard to the terms of such enactment or rule, a partnership agreement in those circumstances is not illegal, i cannot hold that such an agreement is illegal because the british indian courts have held them to be illegal in very similar circumstances.9. in my view, therefore, any detailed examination of ..... entered into in violation of rules of law or against public policy. i have reason to believe that the law of contracts in that state is the same as the indian contract act, but this was, however, bound to be established and not be left merely to inference. the 1st defendant on whom the harden of proof lay to establish satisfactorily all .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 27 1925 (PC)

Jagat Chandra Bhattacharyya and ors. Vs. Gunny Hajee Ahmed

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-27-1925

Reported in : AIR1926Cal271,91Ind.Cas.824

..... partner is the agent of his co-partners for the purpose of conducting debts and obligations in the usual course of partnership (see sections 249 and 251 of the contract act, lindley on partnership, 3rd edition, p. 248). and when this agency has once been established, it does not cease as regards third ..... be prepared to say, that this section applied.85. the next point argued is that kush chandra bhattacharyya's lunacy in 1914 ipso facto dissolved the partnership. this argument is based upon an alleged analogy to infancy which, however, in my opinion, does not exist, an infant is under a continuing ..... decree of the court for dissolution, however, was made and still remains, and i assume, therefore, for the purpose of my judgment, that the partnership as between kush chandra bhattacharyya and the other partners was dissolved as from 19th march 1919.50. the question still remains whether that fact is sufficient ..... second point upon which the learned advocate for the appellants relied was, that the lunacy of kush chandra bhattacharyya, which occurred in 1914, dissolved the partnership between him and the other members of the firm as from that time. he based his argument on the allegation that in india a lunatic ..... a person of unsound mind may begin and end at any time; it may be continuous or it may be intermittent. section 12 of the indian contract act is consistent with this for the second paragraph provides that, 'a person who is usually of unsound mind, but occasionally of sound mind, may .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 1925 (PC)

B.S. Mahadeva Aiyar and ors. Vs. Ramakrishna Reddiar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-27-1925

Reported in : (1926)50MLJ67

..... other partner with liability, a conclusion manifestly repugnant both to sense and justice.3. here there is no question that that part-payment was in respect of a partnership debt (ex. a). there is also ample evidence from the surrounding circumstances which we are entitled to look at veeranna v. veerabhadraswami i.l.r. ( ..... case of a mercantile firm as here, each partner is entrusted by his copartners with a general authority to do any act necessary for or usually done in carrying on the business of such partnership, a partner's authority extends to making an acknowledgment by part-payment so as to bind his partners. i am ..... that suit be deemed to have continued partners. in raja-gopala pillai v. krisknaswami chetty : (1898)8mlj261 it was held that the fact that a partnership is being wound up is by itself insufficient to authorise a surviving partner to bind the representatives of a deceased partner. but in the present case it ..... 16th august, 1917, was made under the orders of defendants 1 and 5; he also states that the partnership has rot been wound up or the accounts settled. defendant 5 himself applied for a loan to the south indian bank in 1915 (ex. g) in which he sets out the present loan. ex. h is ( ..... of outstandings even after 10th march, 1915, pending the settlement of the accounts.5. fifth defendant in ex. g. a loan application made to the south indian bank, and 7th defendant in his affidavit (ex. f) and in his letter (ex. d-2) to the receiver admitted that the debt due to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 1925 (PC)

B.S. Mahadeva Iyer and ors. Vs. Ramakrishna Reddiar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-27-1925

Reported in : AIR1926Mad114; 92Ind.Cas.653

..... , conducted the entire business. defendant no. 5 was obliged to rely on defendant no. 1 for the conduct by him of all matters connected with the partnership and all such things as the collection of outstandings, etc. in ex. f dated 6th february 1918 the present appellant admits' that defendant no. 1 has ..... with liability, a conclusion manifestly repugnant both to sense and justice.' (page 434*). here there is no question that the part-payment was in respect of a partnership debt-(ex. a).' there is also ample evidence from the surrounding circumstances which we are' entitled to look at pandiri veeranna v. grandhi veerabhadraswami (1918) m. ..... of a mercantile firm as here, each partner is entrusted by his co-partners with a general authority to do any act necessary for or usually done in carrying on the business of such partnership, a partner's authority extends to making an acknowledgment by part-payment so as to bind his partners. i am ..... 1917 was made under the orders of defendants nos. 1 and 5; he also states that the partnership has not been wound up or the account settled. defendant no. 5 himself applied for a loan to the south indian bank in 1915 (ex. g) in which he sets out the present loan. exhibit h is ..... of outstandings even after 10th march 1925 pending the settlement of the accounts.5. fifth defendant in ex. g a loan application made to the south indian bank, and 7th defendant in his affidavit (ex. f) and in his letter (ex. d-2) to the receiver admitted that the debt due to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 1925 (PC)

In Re: Gopaldas Aurora

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-23-1925

Reported in : AIR1926Cal640,94Ind.Cas.793

..... the petition that the debtor was carrying on a co-parcenary business, and submitted that there is no evidence of the existence of a contractual partnership to which the act and rules refer. in any event he has submitted that it would be open to a partner to apply to be adjudicated an insolvent and ..... would be debts for the full amount of which he would be personally liable. when the case is that of a coparcenary business and not a contractual partnership, he contends that the position is even more favourable to his client for which proposition he relies upon sat naram v. behari lal .9. i ..... referred to section 99, which provides that any two or more persons being partners or any person carrying on business under a partnership name may take proceedings or be proceeded against under this act in the name of the firm, and contains a further provision for disclosure of the names of the members of the ..... is to be done or left undone in order to obtain an adjudication order where a debtor who is a member of a partnership firm or where the members of a partnership firm apply for an order of adjudication. but the registrar, by his reference to rule 150 of the rules of this court ..... section 9 (f) is avoided by the explanation to section 10, which says that the presentation of a petition by the debtor shall be deemed an act of insolvency within the meaning of the section. consequently provided certain other conditions are fulfilled, the mere fact of the presentation of a petition for adjudication .....

Tag this Judgment!


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