Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Year: 1938 Page 1 of about 31 results (0.059 seconds)

Feb 03 1938 (PC)

S. Girdharilal Son and Co. Vs. B. Kappini Gowder and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-03-1938

Reported in : AIR1938Mad688; (1938)2MLJ44

..... language of a marginal note, it is noteworthy that in section 8 of the english act corresponding to section 69 of the indian partnership act, the marginal note is 'disability of persons in default'. in the indian companies act, the legislature has provided that unregistered associations of the kind contemplated by the act will be illegal on default of registration. these are, in my opinion, different ways ..... detail or with the several decisions referred to in their judgments.2. the relevant facts and dates are: the promissory note sued on was executed on 12th march, 1931, the partnership act except section 69 came into force on 1st october, 1932, section 69 came into force on 1st october, 1933, and this suit was filed in august, 1934. on these facts ..... language, it is not easy to see any marked difference between the above words and the language of section 69 of the partnership act. in view however of the way in which the general words of this section of the partnership act have been understood in many of the reported decisions, i prefer to deal with the case on the footing that, but for ..... varadachariar, j.1. i agree with pandrang row, j., that the present suit is maintainable and that the objection based on section 69(2) of the partnership act must be overruled. the arguments that can be urged in favour of one view or the other have been fully set out in the judgments delivered by my learned brothers; .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 25 1938 (PC)

Siddavarupu Ramalinga Reddy Vs. Rachaputi Ramalingam Setty and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-25-1938

Reported in : AIR1938Mad929; (1938)2MLJ790

..... v. dinanath mahish the circumstance of concealment is material as leading to the inference that the partner was 'taking advantage' of his position. even the indian partnership act of 1932 has not enacted or adopted any irrebuttable presumption in respect of renewals of leases by a co-partner. the decisions of the judicial committee ..... for his share of the profits made by the use of the common property see watson and company v. ramchand dutt and section 37 of the partnership act). we accordingly hold that the obstruction caused by the 1st defendant was unlawful and entitled the plaintiff to claim damages.36. as regards the quantum of ..... we do not think it necessary to deal with this argument of mr. srinivasa aiyangar. it is no doubt recognised in section 53 of the partnership act that even after dissolution, any partner may restrain any other partner from using any of the property of the firm for his own benefit until the ..... added that even if they should be found to lay down a stricter rule, this court has only to apply the law as laid down-in the indian trusts act hasanali v. esmailji : (1907)9bomlr606 .14. it may be conceded that as regards renewals obtained by 'trustees', the principle of equity in favour ..... the new lease, the 1st defendant was entitled to the benefit of the new lease on the principle of equity embodied in section 88 of the indian trusts act. founding himself on an observation of warrington, j., in bevan v. webb (1905) 1 ch. 620 and on certain remarks of lord lindley .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 17 1938 (PC)

Revappa Nandappa Hattarki Vs. Babu Sidappa Erandole

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-17-1938

Reported in : AIR1939Bom61; (1938)40BOMLR1275

..... the trial court held that the suit was not maintainable, having regard to section 69 of the indian partnership act. the indian partnership act came into operation on october 1, 1932, but by virtue of section 1, sub-section (3), section 69 of the act: only came into force on october 1, 1933, that is two days before this suit was ..... sense.12. for the reasons which i have given, i am of opinion that this suit is not barred by section 69 of the indian partnership act. we must, therefore, allow the appeal with costs, and remand the case to the lower court to be tried on merits.sen, j.13. i agree. ..... the words of their only proper meaning in order to give effect to some intention which the court imputes to the legislature from other provisions of the act. such a course can only be justified where a literal construction of the section is inconsistent with the meaning of the statute as a whole, and ..... such right; which must mean any right already acquired, and falling within sub-clause (a). the words 'or anything done or suffered before the commencement of the act' in sub-clause (b) seem to me to be governed by the previous words ' any legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right ', and ..... imposed by section 69 does not apply to a suit to enforce a right accrued before the act came into operation, by virtue of section 74 of the act. section 74 provides, so far as is relevant, that :-nothing in this act or any repeal effected thereby shall affect or be deemed to affect-(a) any right, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 1938 (PC)

Ct. Al. Vr. Alagappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. the Bank of Chettinad, Ltd. ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-06-1938

Reported in : AIR1939Mad6; (1938)2MLJ944

..... -general who appeared' for the respondents. indeed, it cannot be reconciled with the positive insistence made by the legislature in section 5 of the indian partnership act of 1932 that the relationship of partners arises from contract and not from status. the next paragraph of that section, which is merely a declaration ..... extreme contention; as laid down in section 31 of the indian partnership act the person who is introduced as a partner into a firm does not thereby become liable for any act of the firm done before he became a partner (see also lindley on partnership, 10th edn., p. 266).12. we must add ..... defendant. the learned subordinate judge held that at the time the mandalay firm was started by veerappa, it could not be regarded as a 'partnership' between the father and his major sens but was-only a joint family business in which the father and his sons were interested as members ..... see paragraph 4 of the plaint. it was added thatafter the death of veerappa chettiar, the defendants have been conducting the said firm jointly and in partnership.5. the several promissory rioted above referred to were alleged to have been executed by the first defendant as 'managing partner' and in paragraph: 14 ..... that the decisions which infer a partnership from mere participation of the junior coparcener in the business have .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 01 1938 (PC)

T. Pr. Sm. Somasundaram Chettiar Vs. V. Rm. Sevugan Chettiar and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-01-1938

Reported in : AIR1940Mad505

..... the capital contributing partner could be expected to take his stipulated interest. this seems to be the principle adopted by the indian legislature in section 13(c) of the indian partnership act and by parliament in section 24, clause 4 of the english partnership act. the law may recognise an exception to this rule where the contract expressly provides for payment of interest regardless of profits ..... with the question on its merits now. mr. krishnaswami iyer seems to us to be right in both his contentions on this question of interest. as observed in lindley on partnership, at p. 465 of edn. 10, the right to interest on capital contributed by one of the partners even when there is a stipulation for payment of such interest ordinarily ..... ramanatha he would have been entitled to interest only if and when profits had been made and in any event only up to the date of the dissolution of the partnership and that the lower court was not justified in crediting the respondents with interest on this capital amount throughout the accounting period. this question has not been dealt with in ..... 1. this is an appeal by defendant 1 against the final decree in a suit for the taking of the accounts of a partnership business carried on in mandalay under the v. b.m. vilasam in which the parties to the suit were partners. the plaintiff and defendant 2 are the sons of one .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 06 1938 (PC)

Hakmaji Meghaji Vs. Punnaji Devichand

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-06-1938

Reported in : AIR1938Bom453; (1938)40BOMLR995

..... years before the suit. moreover, we are not satisfied that it is a correct statement of the legal position. no doubt according to the definition in section 239 of the indian contract act ' partnership ' is the relation which subsists between persons who have agreed to combine their property, labour or skill in some business, and to share the profits thereof between them, and ..... and bhikaji the owner of the firm of aslaji sonmal both died more than three years before the suit.5. under section 253 of the indian contract act, which contains the law applicable to this case, a partnership is dissolved by the death of any partner in the absence of any contract to the contrary. it is an admitted fact that meghaji trikamji ..... died in 1927 and that bhikaji also died more than three years before the suit. under article 106 of the indian limitation act a suit for an account and a share of the profits of a dissolved partnership must be brought within three years of the date of dissolution. as i have mentioned, the trial court found that the suit ..... most: reasonable construction of the words, however, seems to be not that the partnership came to an end but that the business of the partnership came to an end, and there is nothing in the indian contract act which justifies the view that the mere cessation of business would dissolve the partnership. on the other hand there is the authority of the privy council for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 28 1938 (PC)

Chockalingam Chettiar Vs. Meyappa Chettiar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-28-1938

Reported in : AIR1939Mad228; (1938)2MLJ287

..... or subsists and it is to be remembered in this connection that even after dissolution of partnership the rights and obligations of the partners continue in all things necessary for winding up the business of the partnership (section 263, indian contract act) no separate action for contribution will lie and the right to contribution can be enforced only as part of a general ..... suit for accounts of the partnership, the reason being that the right of contribution is subject to the special rights and ..... general account became barred and the relation of partnership came to an end. this right to sue for contribution as between co-judgment-debtors is not given by any special enactment. it arises out of equity, an equity all the more stringent in view of the provisions of section 43 of the indian contract act, which permits the promisee to compel any of ..... obligations created by the contract of partnership. this special contract of partnership has the effect of preventing a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 1938 (PC)

Mahaliram Ramjeedas, in Re.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-24-1938

Reported in : [1938]6ITR265(Cal)

..... discovers'. a discovery may be made anywhere, in the absence of, without the knowledge of, and without reference to the assessee. in the indian act the condition precedent is that income has escaped'. this implies a decision by someone (the income-tax officer in my view) that income has escaped'. ..... as are available to him, reason to believe the income from any of the heads of income described under section 6 of the indian income-tax act in the present instance, from business and other sources which should have been assessed in the year of assessment has escaped assessment and ..... derbyshire, c.j. - this reference under section 66 of the indian income tax act, 1922, comes before us with an unusual history. the assessees are a registered partnership firm carrying on business as general merchants in calcutta. in the year of assessment in question from april 1, 1932, ..... an additional assessment if the surveyor 'discovers' that income has been omitted from the first assessment. it has been held in england under the english act that 'discovers' may mean 'has reason to deliver'. there the condition precedent to making another assessment is that the surveyor shall do something - ' ..... commenced fresh proceedings on the original side of this court before mr. justice panckridge for the purpose, apparently, of compelling the income-tax authorities to act in accordance with the observations, just quoted, of mr. justice mcnair. when the matter was about to come on before mr. justice panckridge the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 1938 (PC)

Sir Sundar Singh Majithia, in Re.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-09-1938

Reported in : [1938]6ITR336(All)

..... of property in unequal shares by agreement between the members of the family. but he strenuously pleads that for the purposes of the income-tax act members of an undivided hindu family cannot enter into a partnership in respect to a portion of a joint property which they have partitioned among the present case the status of the family is ..... :-'in all the circumstances of this case, having regard to the personal law governing the assessee and the requirements of the transfer of property act (iv of 1882) and the stamp act (ii of 1899) has the deed of partnership (appendix a) dated 12-2-1933, brought into existence a genuine firm entitled to registration under the provisions of section 26-a of ..... copy, as the case may be, the following certificate, namely :-'this instrument of partnership (or this certified copy of an instrument of partnership) has this day been registered with me, the income-tax officer for in the province of under clause (14) of section 2 of the indian income tax act, 1922. this certificate of registration has effect from the day of april 19 ..... up to the 31st day of march 19.''(2) the certificate shall be signed and dated by the income-tax officer who shall thereupon return to the applicant the instrument of partnership or the certified copy thereof, as the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 07 1938 (PC)

Menahem Mesha Menahem Messa Vs. Moses BunIn Menahem Messa

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-07-1938

Reported in : AIR1938Bom394; (1938)40BOMLR571

..... capable of being in some way rendered definite. no partner under the english as well as under the indian law can point to any specific item of either moveable or immoveable property belonging to the partnership as his own and appropriate it to his own share. in order to ascertain that share the assets ..... cannot, in my judgment, accept a rule which compels us to stop the inquiry at a certain point and to shut out evidence admissible under the indian evidence act. i mention the doctrine, because the appellants, although they did not say kimli in this court, nevertheless desire to reserve the right to rely on the ..... in my opinion, have paid any attention. the doctrine seems to be in the nature of a rule of procedure and to be inconsistent with the indian evidence act. we have to make up our minds as best we can from the texts and the expert evidence as to what the jewish law is. we ..... case was not competent to pass a judgment in rem in relation to a deceased person who had died domiciled in aden, section 41 of the indian evidence act does not help the respondents. it is not disputed by the appellants that the judgment of the alexandrian court is binding upon them, whether or ..... which is our own domestic law, as binding outside the limits of that court's jurisdiction, but he argues that in british india section 41 of the indian evidence act goes further than the rule of international law applicable elsewhere. in my opinion that is not so. section 41 provides that ' a final judgment, order .....

Tag this Judgment!

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