Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Year: 1936 Page 1 of about 34 results (0.066 seconds)

Feb 27 1936 (PC)

Arunachalam Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-27-1936

Reported in : (1936)38BOMLR660

..... real equity between the parties. their lordships think that a reference to sections 24 and 44 of the english, and sections 13 and 48 of the indian partnership act, provides a correct answer and that the true and ultimate right of the appellant against pillai was a right to contribution in proportion to the latter' ..... made a profit or loss, as to the firm's right to be indemnified by a partner for loss caused to it by his wilful neglect, (cf. indian partnership act (no. ix of 1932) section 13(e) and (f)). between partners any right of contribution has reference, prima facie at least, to the ultimate balance ..... of this expression-that is in the sense in which the word is used in clauses (c) and (d) of section 13 of the indian partnership act (ix of 1932). the money necessary for purchasing cotton and carrying on the business was provided by the appellant on the terms that interest was ..... the decision of the high court at madras on a reference made by the commissioner of income-tax, madras, under section 66(2) of the indian income-tax act (act xi of 1922). the appellant is the manager of a hindu undivided family and the order of assessment dated march 11, 1932, was in form ..... as an assessee. from section 24(2) of the indian income-lax act it would seem that the indian legislature thought it necessary to anticipate any possible apprehension that a partnership, by being registered as a registered firm within the meaning of section 26 of the act, might be treated f as a separate assessee in so .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 1936 (PC)

Rm. Ar. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madra ...

Court : Privy Council

Decided on : Feb-27-1936

..... desirable to ask what is the real equity between the parties. their lordships think that a reference to ss. 24 and 44 of the english, and ss. 13 and 48, indian partnership act provides a correct answer and that the true and ultimate right of the appellant against pillai was a right to contribution in proportion to the latter's share of profits ..... firm has otherwise made a profit or loss, as to the firm's right to be indemnified by a partner for loss caused to it by his wilful neglect: cf. partnership act 9 of 1932, s. 13 (e) and (f). between partners any right of contribution has reference, prima facie at least, to the ultimate balance appearing as the result of a ..... the strict sense of this expression; that is in the sense in which the word is used in cls. (c) and (d), s. 13, partnership act (9 of 1932). the money necessary for purchasing cotton and carrying on the business was provided by the appellant on the terms that interest was to be paid upon his ..... , and the firm is treated as an assessee. from s. 24 (2), income-tax act, it would seem that the indian legislature thought it necessary to anticipate any possible apprehension that a partnership, by being registered as a registered firm within the meaning of s. 26 of the act, might be treated as a separate assessee in so absolute a sense as to prevent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 13 1936 (PC)

Mudenur Nagappa Vs. Firm of Bhagavanji Rasaji by Its Partners

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-13-1936

Reported in : AIR1936Mad593; (1936)71MLJ378

..... those powers, as the authority of the partners continues 'in all things necessary for winding up the business or the partnership', in other words, only so far as may be necessary to wind up its affairs (cf. section 47 of the indian partnership act, 1932).7. no further question arises in the appeal filed by sakalchand and although the learned district judge has not ..... payment, does not include a power to compromise or settle it in any way a partner likes. (lindley on partnership, 10th edition (1935) pp. 190 and 191). we may mention that this principle has now received statutory recognition (section 19(c) the indian partnership act, 1932).5. it is said that the firm became dissolved on 5th november 1931 but that circumstance in our ..... case, it is common ground, is governed by chapter xi of the indian contract act which has since been repealed by the indian partnership act, 1932. the relevant part of section 251 runs thus: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-partners to ..... opinion makes no difference. section 263 of the indian contract act runs thus:after a dissolution of partnership, the rights and obligations of the partners continue in all things necessary for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 1936 (PC)

M. Ar. Rm. P.M. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. the National City Bank of New ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-22-1936

Reported in : AIR1936Mad707; (1936)71MLJ373

..... suits against firms in the firm name apply? in the first place, it is impossible to regard the minors as constituting a partnership firm. in the indian partnership act 1932, 'partnership' is described as the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business (section 4). the next section ..... admitted to some benefit, it is unnecessary to rely upon the decision, already mentioned, of the house of lords: for section 30 of the indian partnership act places the matter beyond doubt. we may in this connection also mention, that under the code, as under the english law, when a decree ..... goes on to say that the relation of partnership arises from contract and not from status. it follows that a minor, who is incapable of ..... has been obtained against a firm in the firm name, execution may be levied against the partnership property, notwithstanding the fact that a minor possesses some interest. it is unnecessary to pursue this matter, as mr. rajah iyer, the respondents' learned ..... is, that there must be at least two adult partners who are capable of contracting, before a minor is entitled to the benefits of partnership. the language of section 30 is perfectly clear and it expressly enacts that even where some benefit is reserved to a minor, he is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 1936 (PC)

M. Ar. Rm. P.M. Chidambaram Chettiar and ors. Vs. the National City Ba ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-22-1936

Reported in : 164Ind.Cas.806

..... to suits against firms in the firm name, apply in the first place, it is impossible to regard the minors as constituting a partnership firm. in the indian partnership act, 1932, 'partnership' is described as the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business (s. 4). the next section ..... admitted to some benefit, it is unnecessary to rely upon the decision, already mentioned of the house of lords : for section 30 of the indian partnership act places the matter beyond doubt. we may in this connection also mention, that under the code, as under the english law when a decree has ..... goes on to say that the relation of partnership arises from contract and not from status. it follows that a minor, who is incapable of contracting ..... been obtained against a firm in the firm name, execution may be levied against the partnership property, notwithstanding the fact that a minor possesses some interest. it is unnecessary to pursue this matter, as mr. rajah iyer, the respondents' ..... is, that there must be at least two adult partners who are capable of contracting before a minor , is entitled to the benefits of partnership. the language of section 30 is perfectly clear and it expressly enacts that even where some benefit is reserved to a minor, he is not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 28 1936 (PC)

M.S.A. Subramania Mudaliar Firm by Partner M.S.A. Subramania Mudaliar ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-28-1936

Reported in : AIR1936Mad991; 165Ind.Cas.939; (1936)71MLJ663

..... . when the defendant raised the objection that as the firm was not registered the suit was liable to be dismissed in view of the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act, the plaintiff got the firm registered and applied for the amendment of the plaint as mentioned above. the lower court dismissed the application holding that by the amendment the defect ..... indeed it is clear that the suit as originally instituted was incompetent because of the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act. it is also clear that any subsequent amendment of the petition after getting the firm registered under the act cannot relate back to the date of the institution of the suit so as to cure the defect which existed at ..... facts of this case. there was no question there of any amendment of the plaint, to take effect on the date of amendment. the provisions of section 69 of the partnership act are not at all analogous, but are entirely different from those of order 33, rule 15, civil procedure code. when it is provided imperatively by the statute that no suit shall be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 11 1936 (PC)

S.H. Patel Vs. Husseinbhai Mahomed

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-11-1936

Reported in : AIR1937Bom225; (1937)39BOMLR260

..... tax. therefore, so far as that point is concerned, i think the learned judge was right in holding that the case fell under section 69 of the indian partnership act.3. the next point taken by the applicant-and in view of the absence of any authority on the construction of section 69, it is a point ..... he is entitled to recover this sum against the defendant not in respect of a partnership, but as being moneys paid to the use of the defendant, and recoverable under section 70 of the indian contract act, and that section 69 of the indian partnership act has no application. that argument might perhaps have prevailed, had the assessment been made ..... . the facts are that the plaintiff and the defendant were partners in a business carried on in the name of the union trading agency, and that the partnership was dissolved in august, 1934. the accounts were then made up, and the defendant paid to the plaintiff a sum of rs. 600 odd on account ..... firm. sub-section (i) of section 69 is in the following terms :-no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this act shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to ..... the case of a dissolved firm. it is pointed out that so long as a firm is existing, it can be registered under section 58 of the act, and any difficulty arising under section 69 can thus be overcome, but that if the latter section applies to a dissolved firm, the bar imposed by section .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 07 1936 (PC)

Parakam Catholic Sangham Proprietors, Chamkath Parekkath Variyed's Son ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-07-1936

Reported in : 171Ind.Cas.821

..... clause 2 of the act came into force. the learned district munsif of chowghat dismissed the suit holding that as the firm ..... petition is whether the suit is barred by section 69 of clause 2 of the partnership act. the suit is to recover a sum of money due on a promissory note, to an unregistered firm executed before the indian partnership act of 1922. the action was laid admittedly after october 1933 and when section 69, ..... will be proceeded with without reference to section 69, and the same would not apply to the case. but when the section enacts that nothing in this act shall affect any 'remedy'; 'affect' cannot be interpreted to mean ''apply' to. the term 'remedy' connotes a right to sue or to take ..... a legal remedy in respect of a right already acquired he was also of the view that the words 'before the commencement of the act' would not qualify legal proceeding or remedy. it seems to me that the interpretation placed by sulaiman, c.j., is correct, namely clause (6 ..... any legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, title, interest, obligation or liability or anything done or suffered before the commencement of this act.4. the view taken by sulaiman, c.j. was that the words are general and would ordinarily include any suit or application for the enforcement of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 1936 (PC)

Sarupchand Pannalal Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-11-1936

Reported in : AIR1936Bom397; (1936)38BOMLR934; 165Ind.Cas.581

..... to direct the commissioner of income-tax, bombay, to state a case raising a point of law under section 66 (3) of the indian income-tax act. the point involved is a very short one. the assessee in partnership with his cousin carries on the business of money-lending, and until the accounting period, which is samvat year 1988, ending in november, 1932 ..... accept that. i desire to say that i am not altogether in agreement with the reasoning on which the learned income-tax commissioner bases his order. section 13 of the act provides that income, profits and gains shall be computed in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. the commissioner says that the regular method is the ..... the assessee desires us to direct the commissioner to raise does not really arise. the question suggested is whether on a true construction of section 13 of the income-tax act, the income-tax officer was wrong in law in not accepting the method of accounting employed by the assessee since samvat year 1988. now that question really involves an actual ..... to a person to change a method which he has regularly employed for some years at any period in any particular year. there is nothing in the section or the act to prevent an assessee from changing his method. he has of course to satisfy the income-tax authorities that he is doing so in good faith, and if the revenue .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 1936 (PC)

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.A.L.A.R. Aryan Chettiar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-31-1936

Reported in : 173Ind.Cas.143; (1937)2MLJ928

..... of arithmetic to ascertain what the share in those profits of each of the individual partners is. there is nothing in the indian income-tax act which says that a partnership or a firm is to be assessed first. either the firm itself is liable to be assessed or its individual partners. in ..... from assessment and the individual partners were sought to be assessed. i think that the income-tax officer was mistaken in holding that the partnership was not liable to assessment in respect of those profits as in my opinion martin's case already referred to does not touch this point ..... alternative is that they were received by the partners individually and there does not seem to me to be any other possible alternative. if the partnership itself is not assessable, clearly in my view, the individual partners are. although it may be true that they have not received this money ..... that upon the authority of the case already referred to, this being a remittance from a separate entity, namely, the saigon partnership to another entity, namely, the rangoon partnership, the partnership was not liable to be assessed. from this mr. k.s. krishnaswami aiyangar who appeared on behalf of the assessee contended ..... these circumstances the share of the assessee in that sum was assessed under section 34 of the indian income-tax act. the contention put before the income-tax officer was that the partnership itself ought not to be assessed and it appears also that the advocate who appeared before the income-tax officer .....

Tag this Judgment!


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