Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Year: 1928 Page 1 of about 27 results (0.062 seconds)

Feb 01 1928 (PC)

Mahadev Narayan Nerkar Vs. Narayan Dattatraya Samant

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-01-1928

Reported in : AIR1928Bom248; (1928)30BOMLR530; 110Ind.Cas.343

..... dissolved as between all the other members of the partnership as well as the retiring partner. the plaintiff alleged that at the time of the retirement of defendant ..... the suit. similarly, in indur subbarami lieddy v. kandadai rajamannar ayyangar i.l.r. (1902) mad. 47 where in a suit for partnership accounts two out of three defendants made an application to the court to refer the matter in dispute to arbitration, bat the representatives of defendant ..... well as the other partners upon taking accounts, among the issues that were subsequently raised no. 3 was, 'what were the terms of the partnership business alter defendant no. 3 retired from it,' and no. 5 was, 'what is found due on taking accounts to each of the ..... the partnership was dissolved. originally, all the parties to the suit had been partners. but on march 26, 1921, the third defendant retired from the partnership, it must he taken that by this retirement under the provisions of section 253, sub-section (7), of the indian contract act, the partnership was ..... no. 3 it was agreed that defendant no. 3 had no right in the assets of the partnership, nor was he liable in respect of the debts of the partnership .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 26 1928 (PC)

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.V. Krishna Aiyar and Sons

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-26-1928

Reported in : (1929)56MLJ151

..... the rules. the material rule is rule 2 which runs as follows: 'any firm constituted under an instrument of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners may, for the purposes of clause 12 of section 2 of the indian income-tax act, register with the income-tax officer particulars contained in the said instrument on application in this behalf made by the ..... made and besides the return on the 26th of july, 1927, the assessees put in an application for registration of the firm. the commissioner has refused to register the partnership for the purposes of the act and the question is whether he was right. i will now shortly refer to the two or three material sections and rules of the income-tax ..... any special provision of any statute but are based on the general principles of the law of partnership and we should, we think, endeavour respectfully to follow those high authorities. i think that there is nothing in the language of section 256 of the indian contract act which, in any way, modifies the effect of those decisions of the house of lords. the ..... partners or any of them' and then follows a form which sets out the particulars which are to be given. this form was filled in and the application was accompanied by a copy of the instrument of partnership .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 1928 (PC)

P.M. Ramakrishna Aiyar Vs. P. Muthuswami Aiyar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-14-1928

Reported in : 121Ind.Cas.609; (1929)56MLJ657

..... but it is contended that section 42 of the english act merely enacted what had prior to that act been held to be the law in a long series of decisions of ..... v. rivett-carnac wherein it is clearly recognised that the plaintiff has an option to claim either profits or interest as in section 42 of the english partnership act. neither in ahmed musaji saleji v. hashim ebrahim saleji in which interest was awarded, nor in haji hedayetulla v. mahomed kamil (1923) 19 l ..... the partnership assets since the dissolution of the firm by his retirement or to interest on the amount of his share in the partnership as it stood on the date of its dissolution. that is the rule enacted in section 42 of the english partnership act. there is no corresponding provision in the indian contract act,... ..... this country, as a rule of justice, equity and good conscience. the appellant's advocate relies also on sections 88, 90 and 95 of the indian trusts act in support of the same contention. section 88 says (to quote ..... the courts of equity and that the same rule has also been held to be applicable to partnerships in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 20 1928 (PC)

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.L.S.P.P.L. Subramanian Chettiar a ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-20-1928

Reported in : AIR1928Mad923; 110Ind.Cas.889; (1928)55MLJ416

..... vakil for the commissioner have really no bearing on the construction of the indian act and need not be referred to. it is hardly necessary to observe-that, when interest is deducted from the earnings under this clause by the partnership as its expenditure, it is really profit earned by the individual partner who ..... insufficient, then it becomes surplus capital and not a loan. we are not able to follow these distinctions of the commissioner. all sums lent to the partnership are loans whoever the parties and whatever the purpose for which they are lent. after being borrowed, if they are used like capital, they become borrowed ..... meaning which should be ascribed to the expression 'capital borrowed for the purposes of the business' in section 10, clause 2 (iii) of the indian income-tax act. it was argued by the learned vakil for the commissioner that any sum of money which a partner puts into the business of a firm ..... commissioner to find that there was no genuine borrowing of capital. i agree that the present case falls under section 10(2)(iii) of the indian income-tax act.beasley, j.i agree and make the same reservation as wallace, j.tiruvenkatachariar, j.1. the answer to the question referred to the full ..... for being used as capital cannot be treated as a loan from him to the partnership, even though the firm purports to borrow the amount from him .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 1928 (PC)

Rattan Chand Vs. Ram Kishan Murarji and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-22-1928

Reported in : AIR1928All447; 114Ind.Cas.743

..... family. here the business had belonged to the family, and therefore the death of the0 father did not under section 253 (10), contract act, dissolve the partnership as the joint family could not die. the present case is stronger than that of the dayabhaga family in the case of sanyasi charan mandal ..... death of the father.23. but when on 9th october 1919, kalyan mal separated there was unquestionably a dissolution of the old partnership. under section 253 (7), contract act, the partnership was then dissolved as between all the other members.24. the learned advocate for the respondents relies on the statement of sumer ..... their own funds styled hardeo das gulab chand, though it was on the same date. the effect of the provisions of the contract act certainly is that the old partnership was dissolved and a new business began. this new business was started, not even by a hindu father but by a brother. ..... chand and hypothecating joint family property was not binding on the plaintiff. it appears that the plaintiff's father, hardeo das, carried on business in partnership with his brother-in-law kalyan mal under the style hardeo das kalyan mal. he died in 1917 leaving gulab chand, his adopted son, and ..... the parties rest on contractual arrangement which cannot exist in the case of a minor. when their lordships, after discussing the provisions of the indian contract act, remarked on p. 570 that it made no difference that the business was conducted by the members of a family governed by the dayabhaga .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 07 1928 (PC)

Kapurji Magniram Vs. Pannaji Devichand

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-07-1928

Reported in : (1928)30BOMLR1560; 113Ind.Cas.341

..... entitled to sue upon that contract in his own name without joining the co-partners as plaintiffs, although the benefit of the contract would result to the partnership firm: and that is really an illustration of the well recognised rule that an agent having an interest in the contract which he has entered into on ..... rights, if any, and that it is not one raised on a substantial basis. even supposing that the agreement between the two firms amounted to an actual partnership, there is no absolute rule of law that one partner of a firm cannot sue for a debt that is due to the firm. as long ago as ..... in the contract can sue in his own name. the case also, in my opinion, falls under the rule laid down in section 230 of the indian contract act that, where the agent does not disclose the name of his principal, there shall be presumed a contract by which he can personally enforce the contract entered ..... as when it was derived from the mouth of the agent. but that decision was made without any reference to the terms of section 230 of the indian contract act. it is not referred to by west j., and the authority of that decision has been considerably weakened by the subsequent case of lahshmandas v. anna ..... behalf of his principal is entitled to sue in his own name. the cases that establish that proposition will be found in pollock and mulla's indian contract act, 5th ed,, p. 722; and among other cases where it has been recognised may be cited, subrahmania fattar v. narayanan nayar i.l.r(1900) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 20 1928 (PC)

In the Matter of the Sonardih Coal Co., Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Parm ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-20-1928

Reported in : 108Ind.Cas.451

..... in which he entered that he took 1,000 shares would not be registered with the registrar of joint stock companies until the formal deed of partnership between him and the said four persons as managing agents had been registered.3. he admits that his client signed the memorandum of association and the ..... company, and that it was on this understanding that he signed the memorandum of association and the prospectus. he says that a draft deed of partnership between certain persons and himself as managing agents was drawn up and signed by himself and the other four persons, and that it was well understood ..... at the time of the entry as to shares taken.4. on behalf of the official liquidators it is maintained that under section 24 of the indian companies act the memorandum of association and the prospectus must be deemed to have been properly signed, registered and presented to the registrar, and that no evidence ..... by the subscribers at different places and different dates, and that a single person could not have attested (as required by section 9 of the companies act) the signature of each subscriber by means of a single signature on the part of the attesting witnesses. he is also prepared to show that ..... but as regards the memorandum of association, he says that it cannot be regarded as a memorandum within the meaning of section 30 of the companies act for two reasons. one is that although in the column of attesting witness the name of a witness appears against a bracket which covers all the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 1928 (PC)

Rao Bahadur Pydah Venkatachalapathi Vs. the Guntur Cotton, Jute and Pa ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-03-1928

Reported in : 115Ind.Cas.486

..... and that such loss should be measured by the rate of rs. 26-8 which was arranged by the 2nd defendant himself with regard to the partnership that took over the lease as being the reasonable rate per putti of cotton. i am unable to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the ..... or otherwise, nor shall any such contract or arrangement, or any contract or arrangement entered into, by or en behalf of the company with any company or partnership, of or in which any director shall be a member or otherwise interested, be avoided nor shall any director so contracting, or being such member or so ..... in the decree since the judgment is clear that the present 2nd defendant had no share but was only a sub-partner with a sharer. such sub-partnership, however, would undoubtedly be an interest in the contract. the lower court is, therefore, right in holding that it has not been proved that the ..... man to get his lease on the lowest possible terms which the mill will accept, and if he makes a large profit thereon or enters into partnership with some one else on the prospect of getting larger profits for himself that is not the business of the mill. the mill after publicly calling ..... this point may be supported.27. the next point is general commission. the district judge has ordered the defendants to forfeit under section 220 of the indian contract act, their general commission for 1915, 1916 and 1917, because of their misconduct in these years. here again the lower court has gone entirely outside the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 1928 (PC)

Sitaram Krishna Padhye Vs. Chimandas Fatehchand

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-15-1928

Reported in : AIR1928Bom516; (1928)30BOMLR1300

..... person liable was g.v. athale, then, in my opinion, the court ought to have refused to allow any other issues to be framed raising questions of partnership or authority to sign on behalf of the principal, and the court ought to have dismissed the suit as against padhye. we have, now been asked at this ..... judge holds, padhye was the owner of the alleged firm, then are the suit hundis, which just read, drawn in a form to make either the alleged partnership or the alleged owner liable on them? if not, and if this is merely brought on hundis, then it must fail so far as regards padhye.6. now ..... that a person, other than the person who has signed it, is liable. it is noteworthy that in the passage in pollock & mulla's work upon the indian contract act, to which i have referred, no reference is made to the privy council case to which we have drawn attention in our judgments.23. mr. taraporewala asked ..... with the matter, and that accordingly in the view of the authors it is a question whether, having regard to sections 23b and 234 of the indian contract act, the principal cannot be proceeded against upon a negotiable instrument executed by the agent in his own name. mr. tarapore-wala's argument amounted to this ..... a promissory note made on behalf of or on account of the company. accordingly it was held that the directors were personally liable.7. so, too, as regards indian law, there is the judgment of the privy council in sadusuk janki das v. kishan pershad (1918) l.r. 46 indap 33 :55 bom. l.r. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 1928 (PC)

Arunachalam Chetty and ors. Vs. O.S. Ramasamy Ayyar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-14-1928

Reported in : AIR1928Mad933

..... by accepting a small amount from him in full discharge of the debt so as to bind his co-obligees. in the case of trading 'partnerships one of the partners can in the course of business accept part payment in full discharge of a debt when he is satisfied that in the ..... , it is competent to one of three joint plaintiffs to settle an action so as to protect himself from being obliged to sue.15. the indian contract act has departed from the rule of english common law that a joint promisee could dispense with the performance of the promise without reference to the other ..... of co-obligees or co-promisees. and it is not right to apply, english common law wholesale without reference to the indian statute law on the point. pollock and mulla, in their commentary on the indian contract act, observe at p. 240, edn. 3, with regard to wallace v. kelsall [1841] 7 m.&w.; 264 ..... the powers of a partner who takes an active part in the management of the business. the law of partnership enables every one of the partners to take part in the management of the partnership business and anything done bona fide in the course of management must necessarily bind the other partners. (see section ..... 253, contract act). but where two joint promisees are interested in a transaction and there is no question of managing .....

Tag this Judgment!

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