Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-18-1942
Reported in : 10ITR219(All)
..... expression 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' we have to look not to the indian parnership act but to the indian contract act, it is only by the amending act of 1939 that it has been made clear that the terms 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' will have the same meanings respectively as in the indian partnership act of 1932.section 239 of the indian contract act was as follows :-' partnership is the relation which subsists ..... the indian income-tax act were not latered, and it has again been conceded before us that for the ..... section 26-a can succeed. the terms 'firm' and 'partnership' as not defined in the income-tax act, but in section 2 (6a) it is said 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' have have the same meanings respectively as in the indian contract act, 1872. although chapter xi of the indian contract act of 1872 was repealed by the indian partnership act of 1932, but the words in section 2 (6a0 of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-03-1942
Reported in : AIR1942Mad634; (1942)2MLJ636
..... behalf of'' or in other words, for the benefit of the firm of goverdandoss tokersey, it falls within the mischief of section 69 (2) of the indian partnership act (act ix of 1932) and is liable to be dismissed on that ground. we have already referred to the fact that the plea advanced on behalf of the defendants ..... and was properly instituted by the plaintiff and the defendant's objection that the present suit falls within the mischief of section 69 (2) of the indian partnership act is therefore overruled.14. we must now see whether the plaintiff was entitled to bring the suit in his own name. it is true that the ..... opinion, whether the benefit of a suit is to go to any person other than the plaintiff ultimately. the provisions of section 69 (2) of the indian partnership act could only be attracted to a suit if it was instituted either by or on behalf of the firm, that is to say, ex facie it purports ..... was actually filed in the interest of the firm. he urged that such a suit would fall within the ambit of section 69 (2) of the indian partnership act and would be covered by the words 'on behalf of the firm' used in that section. we are not impressed by that argument. a stringent provision ..... brought by the plaintiff on behalf of the firm and would be maintainable if the firm had been duly registered before its institution as required by the indian partnership act. the reasons for this change of front are not far to seek. it was not denied on behalf of the plaintiff that the firm of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-08-1942
Reported in : AIR1943Mad190; (1942)2MLJ563
..... he says, 'therefore on the facts proved in this case suppayya ambalam must be held liable on the principle of holding out laid down in section 2'8 of the indian partnership act.' in view, however, of the definite language used in paragraph 43, it would seem that the district munsiff was of the opinion that the 1st defendant's father's estate ..... to pass decrees in favour of the plaintiffs on the footing of a holding out by the petitioner's father, which would, make him liable under section 28 of the partnership act for the sums 6f money advanced. the suits were brought on the facts as they seemed to the plaintiffs, who deduced their legal relationship from the conduct of the 2nd ..... by the government servants' conduct rules from engaging in business without the permission of the government, and that therefore all the transactions that were entered into on account of the partnership were null and void. the learned advocate for the petitioner cites sundrabai v. manohar : air1933bom262 . in support of his contention. although the government servants' conduct rules contain this provision and ..... prejudiced by the fact that the suits were not brought on the footing of a holding out. moreover, the learned district munsiff seems to have found that there was a partnership; though certain sentences two paragraphs later would rather suggest the contrary. in paragraph 43 of his judgment, the learned district munsiff definitely says, 'i have come to the conclusion that .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-17-1942
Reported in : (1943)45BOMLR1075
..... arrangement. this is not a case of an agreement of partnership where nothing has been done.14. (m.c. setalvad. see section 19 of the indian partnership act, 1932. the alleged partnership is not registered and the present suit is not maintainable. moreover, partnership is not pleaded.)15. there is no privity between the ..... paid to chinubhai lalbhai and brothers, limited. mr. taraporevala very wisely did not press this point when he was confronted with section 69 of the partnership act, and he realised that in pressing his argument he was endangering his whole suit.53. the next submission of mr. taraporevala is that the ..... deciding whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation, the principle that the court must adopt is the same that underlies section 73 off the indian contract act. under that section the court is empowered to award damages when there is a breach of contract for any loss or damage caused to ..... the joint family with the lal mills; and (3) the security of the joint family property given to the banks under section 202 of the indian contract act, where the agent has himself an interest in the property which forms the subject-matter of the agency, the agency cannot, in the absence ..... to revoke the authority of a substituted agent. to my mind the contention of mr. taraporevala is clearly erroneous. section 195 of the indian contract act provides that in selecting a substituted agent under section 194, an agent is bound to exercise the same amount of discretion as a man .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-24-1942
Reported in : AIR1943Bom156; (1943)45BOMLR181
..... distribution could be made to satisfy both the decrees. with great respect to the learned judges, it is difficult to see how section 49 of the indian partnership act could apply to those facts. this section occurs in the chapter relating to the dissolution of a firm, and it says that where there are ..... was, however, held that rateable distribution could not be allowed in view of the provisions of section 49 of the indian partnership act, which are similar to those of section 262 of the indian contract act. the learned judges there interpreted the provisions of that section as meaning that although a decree against a firm could be ..... appeared in the suit, and there is nothing in that rule to show that personal execution against the partner cannot be taken unless the property of the partnership was exhausted. the provisions of o. xxi, rule 50, do not seem to have been brought to the notice of the court. i am unable ..... no two different debts, but only one debt created by the decree. there is no question, therefore, of executing the decree against the assets of the partnership before executing it against the separate property of the partner. on the other hand, by virtue of the provisions of o. xxi, rule 50, the ..... , rule 7 provides that where a summons is served in the manner provided by rule 3 upon a person having the control or management of the partnership business, no appearance by him shall be necessary unless he is a partner of the firm sued.3. now, applying these provisions to the facts .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-08-1942
Reported in : (1943)45BOMLR691
..... question of transferalbility of this particular kind of property and not to the nature of the property itself.5. under section 69, sub-section (3), sub-clause (b), of the indian partnership act, the power of the official assignee to realise the property of an insolvent partner is not affected by the prohibitions contained in sub-sections (1) and (2). section 52 of ..... the important insignia of property, but they are not the only ones.4. i must construe the word 'property' as used in sub-section (3) of section 69 of the indian partnership act in its widest sense, and there is no doubt that in that widest sense 'property' means all legal rights which a person can own. if a chose in action or ..... to realize unliquidated damages for a breach of contract. as pointed out by the learned chief justice in appaya nijlingappa hattargi v. subrao babaji teli : air1938bom108 , section 69 of the indian partnership act is designed to encourage registration by imposing a disability in the case of firms which are not registered. sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 69 forbid the bringing of ..... . 1's contention is that having regard to section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable. it is common ground that the partnership firm of kotibhaskar, amin & co. was not registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act. it is admitted by the first defendant company that this partnership was dissolved before the suit was filed. therefore the suit is .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-04-1942
Reported in : (1943)45BOMLR9
..... hindu undivided family.11. on this section the contention of the commissioner is that for the purposes of the indian income-tax act members of an undivided hindu family cannot enter into a partnership in respect of a portion of the joint property which they have partitioned among themselves. but in their lordships' ..... be discharged and the case remanded to the high court for disposal after taking such action under sub-section (4) of section 66 of the indian income-tax act, 1922, as the high court may think fit in the light of this judgment. the respondent will pay the appellants' costs of this appeal ..... by the assessees from a judgment of the high court at allahabad on a reference made under sub-section (2) of section 66 of the indian income-tax act, 1922. the question referred arises out of an assessment made for the year 1932-3 on the profits of a business carried on under ..... the 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 dated february 12, 1933, brought into existence a genuine firm entitled to registration under the provisions of section 26a ..... of the act ?7. when a document purporting to be an instrument of partnership is tendered under section 26a on behalf of a firm and application is made for registration of the firm as constituted .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-23-1942
Reported in : AIR1943Bom362; (1943)45BOMLR761
..... age was short of eighteen years by nine days. the new transactions made after those nine days had passed were not merely ratifying the void agreement of partnership, but fresh business conducted on terms which can be ascertained from that agreement. on the principle laid down by the privy council it was quite competent for ..... real ground of distinction, but it is urged that even in the present case there is nothing to show that the plaintiff advanced any money to the partnership after defendant no. 1 attained majority. but this is not a suit to recover any sum or any loan advanced to defendant no. 1, but ..... he was to get interest at six per cent per annum, and the profits and losses were to be shared equally by the two partners. the partnership was dissolved by mutual consent on january 15, 1935. the stock-in-trade, which was valued at rs. 602, was taken over by defendant no. ..... already dissolved, then for accounts and recovery of the amount found due.2. on august 11, 1924, the plaintiff-appellant entered into an oral agreement of partnership with defendant no. 1 to conduct a cloth shop at thasra in the name of ramanlal maganlal. the plaintiff was to advance the necessary capital on which ..... the latter should advance money on mortgage and take a lease of a part of the estate. that agreement was void under section 11 of the indian contract act, but after the management was given up and he was restored the possession of the estate and acquired the right to contract about it, he carried .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-28-1942
Reported in : AIR1942Mad736; (1942)2MLJ620
..... partner there. therefore the control and management of the firm was not wholly without british india. that being the case the firm is liable to be taxed under the indian income-tax act. section 4-a is a new section and the question here is governed by its terms. before the tribunal there was apparently much discussion of clause (7) of the ..... this court:whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the applicant firm was 'resident' in british india under section 4-a (6) of the income-tax act.2. the tribunal has expressed the opinion that the applicant firm was resident in british india and we have no hesitation in concurring in that opinion.3. the firm commenced ..... partnership deed which provides for the management of the firm in colombo. we do not consider that this clause has any bearing on the question. what the court has to consider .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-28-1942
Reported in : 10ITR484(Mad)
..... without british india. that being the case the firm is liable to be taxed under the indian income-tax act. section 4-a is a new section and is governed here by its terms. before the tribunal there was apparently much discussion of clause 7 of the partnership deed which provides for the management of the firm in colombo. we do not considered ..... this court :-'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the applicant firm was resident in british india under section 4-a (b) of the income-tax act.'the tribunal has expressed the opinion that the applicant firm was resident in british india and we have no hesitation in concurring in that opinion. the firm commenced carrying on .....Tag this Judgment!