Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Year: 1926 Page 1 of about 23 results (0.058 seconds)

Feb 17 1926 (PC)

L. Mewaram Vs. Seth Ram Gopal and

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-17-1926

Reported in : 95Ind.Cas.152

..... , j.3. i entirely agree i have just one word to add and that is as to the interpretation of section 4 of the indian companies act (act vii 1913).4. where a person lends his name to a partnership contract he is a 'person' constituting the total number of partners. behind his back there may be a joint hindu family or he may ..... the dissolution of partnership was maintainable in a court of law. the learned subordinate judge has held that, as a matter of fact, the number of partners ..... admittedly counts as one. on the other hand, if he entered into the partnership in his representative capacity on behalf of his family, then his joint family must be considered to be a unit and must be deemed to be one person within section 4 of the indian companies act. this view is in accord with the pronouncement of a division bench of ..... two separate suits brought for dissolution of partnership. the substantial pleas raised on behalf of the defendant-appellant rai bahadur lala mewa ram were that the partnership in question consisted of more than 20 members and was, therefore, illegal within the meaning of section 4 of the indian companies act (act vii of 1913) and (2) that the partnership being an illegal association no suit for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 1926 (PC)

Mewa Ram Vs. Ram Gopal

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-17-1926

Reported in : AIR1926All337; 97Ind.Cas.90

..... .3. i entirely agree. i have just one word to add and that is as to the interpretation of section 4 of the indian companies act (7 of 1913).4. where a person lends his name to a partnership contract he is a person' constituting the total number of partners. behind his back there may be a joint hindu family or he may ..... for the dissolution of partnership was maintainable in a court of law. the learned subordinate judge has held that as a matter of fact the number of partners ..... admittedly counts as one. on the other hand, if he entered into the partnership in his representative capacity on behalf of his family, then his joint family must be considered to be a unit and must be deemed to be one person within section 4 of the indian companies act. this view is in accord with the pronouncement of a division bench of ..... two separate suits brought for dissolution of partnership. the substantial pleas raised on behalf of the defendant-appellant, rai bahadur lala mewa ram, were: (1) that the partnership in question consisted of more than 20 members and was therefore illegal within the meaning of section 4 of the indian companies act (7 of 1913) and (2) that the partnership being an illegal association, no suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 1926 (PC)

Uthira Reddiar Vs. Muthu Reddiar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-18-1926

Reported in : AIR1927Mad68; 97Ind.Cas.757

..... partnership concern, but to the other partner in respect of what he is to contribute to the joint capital.2. see page 806, pollock ..... .' i take the finding to mean that after the defendant executed the promissory note the plaintiff actually paid the money which went towards the defendant's share capital of the partnership.4. the petition is, therefore, allowed. i pass a decree to the plaintiff for the suit amount claimed with interest at 6 per cent up to the date of the ..... the defendant executed the promissory note to the plaintiff for the money paid by the plaintiff towards the defendant's share capital of the partnership. in this view the promissory note transaction is absolutely independent of the partnership concern and there is nothing against law in the plaintiff being allowed to institute a suit on a promissory note. the law applicable is ..... thus stated by pollock and mulla in their book on the indian contract act:one partner may sue another for advances made by him not to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 1926 (PC)

Mewa Ram Vs. Ram Gopal and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-31-1926

Reported in : AIR1926All591

..... the factories, has appealed. the other defendants have submitted to the decree. it cannot be doubted for a moment that this partnership contravened the provision of section 4 of the indian companies act which requires that any company or association or partnership, consisting of more than 20 persons formed for the purpose of carrying on any business that has for its objects the acquisition ..... the number of partners had always been more than 20 since 1902. it therefore became common ground that the partnership which admittedly had been formed for the purpose of gain was for want of registration illegal under section 4 of the indian companies act.3. the learned subordinate judge found that the plaintiff was not entitled to obtain dissolution or any decree for ..... 1917 and that it was for the benefit of the workmen by means of mutual assurance amongst its members would clearly take the case out of section 4 of the indian companies act. the learned judge of the court below quoted from the footnote (h) of lord halsbury's laws of england, vol. 22, p. 18 and stated as the law, that ..... same section the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful unless it is forbidden by law, etc. by section 4, companies act, which corresponds to section 1 of the companies act of england (1908), no company or association or partnership consisting of more than 20 persona shall be formed for the purpose of carrying on any business that has for its object .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 15 1926 (PC)

Hirabai Gopaldas Vs. Dhanjibhai B. Kavarana

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-15-1926

Reported in : (1927)29BOMLR427

..... . defendant no. 2 has given oral evidence as to an arrangement between the partners that these moneys should be taken into the account of the partnership. that arrangement is put forward as occurring at any rate some time after april 1925. it is said that gopaldas admitted these moneys belonged to ..... no. 2's case that the deceased gopaldas and jivandas were putting moneys into these different names apparently in order to remove them from the partnership account. however, no allegation of fraud is raised and there is no issue on that point. it is for this reason that i have ..... been opened in the names of the wives and children of the partners should be taken into the partnership account as the moneys of the respective partners and were never intended, when these accounts were opened, to be treated as the moneys of the ..... the deceased gopaldas, and that as such they are liable to be taken into account between the partners. it appears that on the dissolution of the partnership gopaldas and defendant no. 3 jivandas, who were brothers, were considerably indebted to the firm. defendant no. 2 contends that the various accounts which have ..... is admissible. in the first place, any admission by gopaldas made so late as april 1925 would be only admissible under section 32 of the indian evidence act as a statement against his interest. clearly here the alleged admission that the moneys belonged to him would not be an admission against his interest .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 20 1926 (PC)

The Russa Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. the Kanara Transport Co. and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-20-1926

Reported in : AIR1926Mad1138; (1926)51MLJ506

..... think, clearly contained in section 249 of the indian contract act which expressly excludes such liability as regards the creditors of the firm. section 249 of the indian contract act is really the same as section 17 of the english partnership act and the law has been set out in lindley on partnership (3rd edition) pages 273 and 275. this ..... was a partner of the firm and on the evidence there is nothing to show that sanjeeva rao either by reason of his own acts or by reason of any acts of the partnership can be treated as continuing as a partner of the firm after the date of ex. ii.5. the next question is ..... profits and losses equally. all the four of us are jointly and severally liable for the debts of the concern hitherto incurred. a regular deed of partnership will be entered into within a fortnight from date.3. it is clear from this document thai there is a specific statement made that sanjeeva rao was ..... is clear from the evidence and exs. iii, iv and vi that panduranga bhat was not a partner when the partnership was started or for some time afterwards. ex. ii, as to the genuineness of which there is no dispute, is dated the 17th april, 1923 and ..... become a partner of the firm and therefore is not liable on any claim against the firm.2. the partnership was started under an oral agreement; at any rate, we do not find any document evidencing the partnership when it was started. according to the evidence it was started on the 1st october, 1922. it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 11 1926 (PC)

Raghunandan Nanu Kothare Vs. Hormasji Bezonji Bamji

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-11-1926

Reported in : AIR1927Bom187; (1927)29BOMLR207

..... opinion that the principle there laid down is equally applicable in determining whether in the case of an agreement subsequent to the coming into force of the indian contract act the question arises as to whether it is a partnership or not.20. under these circumstances i agree with the answer proposed by the chief justice to issue no. 1 in the case. ..... only reference to any text book which we have been given is to pollock and mulla's indian contract act, at pp. 752 and 753, where the authors very properly point out the difference of language in the formal definitions of partnership in the english and indian acts respectively.13. looking at the matter as one of common sense, it is to my mind almost ..... english law where the usual definition of partnership is somewhat to this effect, viz., 'the relationship which exists between persons carrying on business in ..... under the doctrine of holding out, yet in fact this agreement did not constitute a partnership in law, because they did not agree to share the profits of the business between them, and consequently they did not satisfy the definition of partnership in section 239 of the indian contract act. it is further said that this definition is different to that which prevails in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 11 1926 (PC)

The Firm of Pannaji Devichand Consisting of Partners and ors. Vs. Kapu ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-11-1926

Reported in : AIR1927Mad123; (1926)51MLJ667

..... contracts which the law declares to be illegal.. we are of opinion that having regard to the plaint the partnership which is sought to be dissolved is illegal having regard to section 4 of the indian companies act. the suit fails and the plaintiff will not be entitled to any decree. we therefore reverse the decision ..... question as it would otherwise be possible for more than 20 persons to carry on business in contravention of the act simply by saying that each of them is a member of a certain partnership which in turn is unregistered. in the present case there is nothing in the plaint or in the agreement ..... a 395 it is sufficient to say that that was a case of a hindu joint family where the manager acted. in the present case there is no question of a hindu joint family entering into a partnership. it has been held in gangayya v. vcnkataramiah i.l.r. (1917) m 454 that in the ..... consisted of 22 persons and the question arose as to how far on the plaint such a partnership would be legal having regard to section 4, clause (2) of the companies act which states that-no company, association, or partnership, consisting of more than twenty persons, shall be formed for the purpose of carrying on ..... the definition shall apply unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context of the act. we think that under section 4 of the companies act what we have to see is whether, where an association or partnership is formed for purposes of carrying on a business, each of the members will be liable .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 23 1926 (PC)

Sayyed Abdul Hawk and ors. Vs. Tumuluri Vaikuntam

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-23-1926

Reported in : (1927)52MLJ318

..... adventure it is dissolved at the end of the adventure. this is one mode of dissolution of a partnership. but there is another mode of dissolution of a partnership, that is by death. this is provided for in section 36 of the partnership act, and in section 253 of the indian contract act. even where there is a term the death of one partner dissolves the ..... partnership. the case of an adventure is no better than the cases where there is an express term. section 33 overrides section 32 and if the death is earlier ..... a single adventure, it seems to me that the statement at page 153 of lindley's partnership does not advance the case of the appellants very much.6. the passage quoted has since been enacted as section 32 of the partnership act and its object is to lay down a rule of law by which in the case of an adventure a term ..... , the partnership is dissolved. it is not possible to hold that wherever there is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 23 1926 (PC)

Sayyad Abdul Hawk and ors. Vs. Tumulury Vaikuntam

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-23-1926

Reported in : AIR1927Mad491

..... adventure it is dissolved at the end of the adventure. this is one mode of disssolution of a partnership. but there is another mode of dissolution of a partnership, that is by death. this is provided for in section 33 of the partnership act, and in section 253 of the indian contract act. even where there is a term the death of one partner dissolves the ..... partnership. the case of an adventure is no better than the cases where there is an express term. section 33 overrides section 32 and if the death is earlier ..... a single adventure, it seems to me that the statement at page 153 of lindley's partnership does not advance the case of the appeal very much.6. the passage quoted has since been enacted as section 32 of the partnership act and its object is to lay down a rule of law by which in the case of an adventure a term ..... , the partnership is dissolved. it is not possible to hold that wherever there is .....

Tag this Judgment!


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