Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 1934 Page 1 of about 32 results (0.141 seconds)

Jul 01 1934 (PC)

P.K.P.S. Pichhappa Chettiar Vs. Chokalingam Pillai

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-01-1934

Reported in : (1934)36BOMLR976

..... virappa was the manager of his joint hindu family in 1908, his entering into partnership with the chetties in that year would not ipso facto make the other members ..... the stranger : the partnership will be governed by the act.36. in this passage reference is made to the indian contract act, which would be applicable to the facts of this case. it is to be noted that the sections referring to partnership in the said act have been repealed and are now embodied in the indian partnership act, 1932.37. even assuming, therefore, that ..... of the family do not ipso facto become partners in the business so as to clothe them with all the rights and obligations of a partner as defined by the indian contract act. in such a case the family as a unit does not become a partner, but only such of its members as in fact enter into a contractual relation with ..... was relieved by subrahmanyan chetti, who in turn was relieved about september, 1923, when virappa again took up the management, and acted as agent until february, 1924, when he returned to india.14. the plaintiff further alleged that the partnership was profitable until about the year 1916, since which date the business was carried on at a loss.15. the plaintiff alleged .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 21 1934 (PC)

P.K.P.S. Pichappa Chettiar and Others Vs. Chokalingam Pillai and Other ...

Court : Privy Council

Decided on : Jun-21-1934

..... the manager of his joint hindu family in 1908, his entering into partnership with the chetties in that year would not ipso facto make the other members of ..... the stranger the partnership will be governed by the act." in this passage reference is made to the indian contract act, which would be applicable to the facts of this case. it is to be noted that the sections referring to partnership in the said act have been repealed and are now embodied in the indian partnership act, 1932. even assuming therefore that virappa was ..... of the family do not ipso facto become partners in the business so as to clothe them with all the rights and obligations of a partner as defined by the indian contract act, in such a case the family as a unit does not become a partner, but only such of its members as in fact enter into a contractual relation with ..... lakshmana was relieved by subrahmanyan chetti, who in turn was relieved about september 1923 when virappa again took up the management; and acted as agent until february 1924 when he returned to india. the plaintiff further alleged that the partnership was profitable until about the year 1916, since which date the business was carried on at a loss. the plaintiff alleged that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 27 1934 (PC)

In Re: Gobindlal Mohata

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Nov-27-1934

Reported in : 164Ind.Cas.428

..... a hindu joint family business.3. this seems quite clear, on referring to the definition under section 4 of the indian partnership act and the recent judgment of this court in lalchand v. m. g. bold and co. : air1934cal810 . the relevant section of the presidency towns ..... namely, that the order dated september 15, 1933, for examination of the petitioner and sohanlal mohata under section 36 of the presidency towns insolvency act should be vacated and set aside on the ground that the application on which that order was passed, was made by bhimraj pursuram which admittedly ..... instituted by a joint hindu family and that no such proceedings can be brought by such a family under the provisions of the presidency towns insolvency act.2. learned counsel, however, has informed me that he does not now press for setting aside the earlier order but that he presses the ..... petitioner points out that there is no provision under this act which would entitle a joint family business to initiate proceedings ..... insolvency act is section 99, which states that any two or more persons being partners, or any person carrying on a business in partnership name, may take proceedings or be proceeded against under this act in the name of the firm but learned counsel for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 1934 (PC)

Govindoss Krishnadoss Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : May-08-1934

Reported in : (1934)36BOMLR858

..... obligations of the partners continue in all things necessary for winding up the business of the partnership.15. in substance this is identical with section 38 of the english partnership act of 1890. as regards the partnership property and its application, the following provisions of the indian act are material, viz.:253.-(1) all partners are. joint owners of all property originally ..... brought into the partnership stock or bought with the money belonging to the partnership or acquired for purposes of the partnership business. all such property is called partnership property. the ..... of the evidence, to infer that, after the death of krishna, the appellant, though a minor, was admitted to the benefits of the partnership in terms of section 247 of the indian contract act. ramesam j. states:we must therefore infer in the absence of any member of the family giving us information on the point that the mother ..... fell to be postponed to the claims of the other creditors by virtue of section 262 of the indian contract act.14. there being no contract of partnership, the provisions of the indian contract act, 1872, apply to this case without qualification, and the partnership was therefore dissolved by the death of krishna (section 253, sub-section (103). provision is made .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 21 1934 (PC)

Kasturchand Okaji Marwadi Vs. Hari Govind Wagle

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-21-1934

Reported in : AIR1934Bom491; (1934)36BOMLR1068

..... threatening to sue them. even if it were held that the partnership was by implication dissolved from that date, the suit would, under article 106 of the indian limitation act, be in time.8. in my opinion, however, the partnership was not dissolved at all and the plaintiffs' suit is really ..... a suit for the dissolution of an existing partnership. there is no specific article in the indian limitation act which deals with such suits and the suit would appear to fall under article 120 which deals with ..... agreement (exhibit 108) between the plaintiffs and the defendant. it held, however, that the suit was barred under article 106 of the indian limitation act. against this finding the plaintiffs have now come in second appeal to this court.5. there has been no appearance on behalf of ..... partnership transactions were. the plaintiffs' right to sue must, therefore, be held to have accrued when they gave the notice (exhibit 96) on october 2, 1925, and the defendant failed to reply to it. on this view of the case the plaintiffs' suit would be in time.9. even if article 113 of the indian limitation act ..... suits for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere. the period of limitation provided is six years when the right to sue accrues. prior to october 2, 1925, the defendant had not at any time either denied the partnership .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 1934 (PC)

Pannaji Devichand Vs. Senaji Kapurchand

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-20-1934

Reported in : AIR1934Bom361; (1934)36BOMLR786; 152Ind.Cas.580

..... .l.r(1926) mad. 175, that the suit could not lie, since it disclosed a partnership consisting of more than twenty persons, and so transgressed the provisions of section 4(2) of the indian companies act. a further appeal to his majesty's privy council failed. this suit had in the meanwhile ..... companies act, the present plaint does not proceed on the same lines, though based on ..... that neither of mr. murdeshwar's arguments, the first, that no 'business' was contemplated within the terms of section 4(2) at the indian companies act, and the second that the contract evidenced by exh. a went by the board, and that what really happened on october 19 was the entering ..... beep, stayed, and was proceeded with on the final decision of the bellary one. the plaint in the bellary suit set out a partnership of twenty-two persons, ..... fourteen plaintiffs and eight defendants, and was, on its face, a breach of the provisions of the indian .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 23 1934 (PC)

Parbhu Lal Peary Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central and Unite ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-23-1934

Reported in : [1935]3ITR197(All)

..... firm messrs. onkar mal babu lal of bombay in certain joint transactions in 1929-30 could and did form in law a new partnership or a new firm within the meaning of section 239 of the indian contract act or of any other law.learned counsel for commissioner has taken objection to the wording of this question and he alleges that the attention ..... be brought is the word 'firm'. in section 2 (6-a) it is stated that 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' have the same meanings respectively as in the indian contract act, 1872. in section 239 of the contract act it is stated :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.persons who have entered into a 'partnership' with one another are called collectively a 'firm ..... other remaining six questions in the case and in our opinion the income tax authorities have no power to impose a fine under section 25 of the act on the ground that the alleged partnership did not report its discontinuance. with these observations we direct that our opinion shall be forwarded to the income tax commissioner. we allow costs to the applicant .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 1934 (PC)

Babu Alias Govindoss Krishnadoss Vs. Official Assignee, Madras and Oth ...

Court : Privy Council

Decided on : May-08-1934

..... . 263, which provides as follows : "after a dissolution of partnership the rights and obligations of the partners continue in all things necessary for winding up the business of the partnership.'' in substance this is identical with s. 38, english partnership act, of 1890. as regards the partnership property and its application, the following provisions of the indian act are material, viz. : " 253.-(1) all partners are joint ..... owners of all property originally brought into the partnership stock or bought with the money belonging to the ..... partnership or acquired for purposes of the partnership business. all such property is called partnership property. the share of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 19 1934 (PC)

Ghisulal-ganeshi Lal Vs. Gumbhirmull-pandya and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Dec-19-1934

Reported in : AIR1938Cal377

..... according to the principles of english law as contained and codified to some extent in the indian contract act. according to those principles the firm as such has no existence in law, and ..... has taken before us. the learned judge seems to have adopted the view which indian commercial men habitually form about partnership. they always regard the firm as some sort of legal entity apart from the partners. this attitude has been recognised to some extent in the recent partnership act. but that act does not apply to the circumstances of this case, which must be decided ..... or by each of the partners on the ultimate settlement of their accounts. this non-recognition of the firm was a defect in the law of partnership; and it is to be regretted that the partnership act did not go further than it did in the direction of assimilating the english law to the scotch.12. that defect, as i have said, has ..... firm and that at all material times the defendants recognized messrs. khaitan & co. as having authority to act for the firm. it must be remembered in this connection that as i have already stated, indian commercial men hold a very different view about a partnership firm from that which is held by english lawyers and i am sure that it never entered the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 07 1934 (PC)

NaraIn Das Dori Lal Vs. Mihi Lal and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-07-1934

Reported in : AIR1934All521

..... frequently been made, but the rule is so settled.9. no case in which the said rule was enforced since the english bankruptcy act, 1883, has been brought to our notice, and we observed that in lindley on partnership, while there is a separate discussion of a number of cases dealing with each of the first three exceptions mentioned above, the learned ..... that the indian legislature in passing this act was aware of the exceptions made by the courts in england ..... said exception were allowed to be engrafted on to sub-section (4), section 61, provincial insolvency act, it would be easy for joint creditors of the insolvent partnership to render the provision nugatory by all joining in the insolvency petition. the provincial insolvency act is an act to consolidate and amend the law relating to insolvency in british india, and it must be presumed ..... das dori lal, has preferred a second appeal to this court. sub-section (4), section 61, provincial insolvency act, is in the following terms:in the case of partners, the partnership property shall be applicable in the first instance in payment of the partnership debts, and the separate property of each partner shall be applicable in the first instance in payment of his .....

Tag this Judgment!


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