Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 1937 Page 1 of about 21 results (0.063 seconds)

Jul 23 1937 (PC)

Appaya Nijlingappa Hattargi Vs. Subrao Babaji Teli

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-23-1937

Reported in : AIR1938Bom108; (1937)39BOMLR1214; 173Ind.Cas.766

..... of partnerships which have not been registered under the act. the scheme of the act as to registration is to give any firm a right to register, ..... disclosing the particulars required by the act, and then section 69 is designed to encourage registration by ..... right.2. section 69 of the indian partnership act forbids the bringing of suits in respect ..... as the persons who were members of the partnership and therefore entitled to the debt, sue after the dissolution of the partnership to recover the debt. the learned judge held that even if the dissolution of the partnership were proved, nevertheless the suit would not lie, having regard to section 69 of the indian partnership act, and the question is whether that decision is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 26 1937 (PC)

S. Soomar Sait and Sons by their Partner A.M. Soomar Sait Vs. P.V. Che ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-26-1937

Reported in : AIR1937Mad666; (1937)2MLJ221

..... court for the price of a second-hand motor car sold by them to the defendant. one defence raised was that by reason of section 69 of the indian partnership act the plaintiffs being an unregistered partnership were not entitled to sue and that contention the lower court upheld and dismissed the suit on that as well as on other grounds. the argument there ..... was that cutchi memons are to be included in the latter part of section 5 of the indian partnership act which reads:the relation of partnership arises from contract and not from status; and, in particular, the members of a hindu undivided family carrying on a family business as such, or a burmese ..... buddhist husband and wife carrying on business as such are not partners in such business.2. it is argued here by mr. v.g. row that this is a partnership which arises from status and not from contract because it should be held that cutchi memons stand in an analogous position to hindu undivided families carrying on their family business .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 1937 (PC)

Messrs. Hoosen Kasam Dada Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jan-25-1937

Reported in : [1937]5ITR182(Cal)

..... the per sons who are said to be parties nos. 17,18,19 and 20 cannot, properly speaking, be partners by reason of the provisions of section 30 of the indian partnership act. but again, says mr. gupta, although, strictly speaking, these persons could not be partners in this concern nevertheless the provision of section 30 entail that they should be treated as ..... capital of the wakf vests in the almighty. such being the case, i do not appreciate how a wakf cant be partner in a firm, for section 4 of the indian partnership act defines 'partnership' as the relation between person who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them ..... the instrument or 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, under clause (14) of section 2 of the indian income-tax act, 1922. this certificate of registration has 'effect from the - day of april up to 31st ..... march, 19'. it seems to me that the income-tax officer is only empowered to register a partnership or rather the partnership which has been put forward or nothing else.mr. gupta says that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 03 1937 (PC)

K.A. Dawood Sahib Vs. V.A. Sheik Mohideen Sahib and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-03-1937

Reported in : AIR1938Mad5; (1937)2MLJ760

..... share of his deceased father, and we consider that this decision is correct.5. the learned advocate for the appellant has relied on the provisions of section 13 of the indian partnership act. ci. (b) of that section states that the partners are entitled to share equally in the profits earned, and shall contribute equally to the losses sustained by the firm. but ..... this basis. the learned advocate for the appellant rightly abandoned the contention with regard to the house on having his attention drawn to the provisions of section 48 of the indian partnership act, and, therefore, it is only necessary to discuss whether he is entitled to succeed on the other point.4. in the trial court the plaintiff contended that he was sahib ..... the first defendant a share of 6 1/2 annas. this, of course, meant sharing both the losses and profits in these proportions. at an early stage in the original partnership, partnership moneys were advanced on mortgage. two sums were in fact so advanced on the same property--a sum of rs. 2,500 and another of rs. 1,900. the mortgagors ..... that term, the mutual rights and duties of the partners remain the same as they were before the expiry, so far as they may be consistent with the incidents of partnership at will; and(c) where a firm constituted to carry out one or more adventures br undertakings carries out other adventures or undertakings, the mutual rights and duties of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 1937 (PC)

P.P. Sundararaja Aiyangar Vs. P.L. Mannarsawmi and

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-04-1937

Reported in : AIR1937Mad528; (1937)1MLJ610

horwill, j.1. this was a suit by an unregistered partnership against a debtor. the only question raised in the suit and in this petition is whether, in view of the fact that the money was borrowed before the indian partnership act came into force, the suit is maintainable in the face of section 69 of the act.2. section 69 makes it clear that no suit of the description can be brought after the act comes into force. it is argued that this is controlled by section 74; but section 74 in my opinion although it keeps intact any rights that may have accrued before the act came into force, does not affect the enforcement of that right by means of a suit which is governed by section 69. by virtue of section 1 of the act, section 69 came into force one year after the rest of the act and undoubtedly the purpose of this is to give persons a year's grace in bringing suits of this description or in getting themselves registered. in view of the plain wording of section 69, i find that the learned district munsif was wrong in holding that this suit was maintainable and in granting a decree. the petition is therefore allowed with costs throughout and the suit dismissed.

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 25 1937 (PC)

S. C. Mullick and Sons, in Re.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Oct-25-1937

Reported in : [1938]6ITR99(All)

..... governed by the dayabhag law and the assets of the hardware business were joint hindu family property. he also held that the deed of partnership, dated 14th july 1934, represented a fictitious transaction. the assistant commissioner expressed the view that members of a joint hindu family cannot become ..... deed, dated the 14th july 1934, and holding that there was no firm in existence such as could be registered under section 26-a of the indian income tax act, 1922.'as regards the first question the commissioner has ..... the assessee, being a family governed by the dayabhag branch of hindu law is a hindu undivided family within the meaning of the indian income tax act, 1922;(2) it the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether there was evidence upon which the additional income ..... are partners. on 23rd july, 1934, k. d. mullick applied under sec. 26-a of the income tax act for registration of the firm. with the application the deed of partnership, already referred to, was filed. though, to begin with, the controversy was in connection with application for registration, ..... tax officer could hold that no partition had taken place among the members of the family; and(3) whether in the circumstances of this case, the income tax officer was justified in going behind the partnership .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 1937 (PC)

Jesinglal Kalidas Shah Vs. Gangadhar Mahadeo Karandikar

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-14-1937

Reported in : AIR1938Bom354; (1938)40BOMLR507

..... the court, rather than the party, was responsible for further action. it was on this ground that it was held that an application to pass a final decree in a partnership suit was not subject to any limitation. i hold that ihe contention that no limitation applies to a final decree for sale is not maintainable.6. the next contention urged ..... may pass a preliminary decree declaring the rights of the several parties interested in the property and giving such further directions as may be required. similarly, in the case of partnership suits, order xx, rule 15, provides that the court, before passing a final decree, may pass a preliminary decree declaring the proportionate shares of the parties, and directing such accounts ..... final decree. hence an application to pass a final decree is not subject to limitation.4. but the provisions in the code of civil procedure in respect of partition and partnership suits are different from these in respect of mortgage suits. in the case of partition suits section 75 of the civil procedure code provides that the court may issue a commission to ..... application is not' governed by article 183.12. both the above contentions of the plaintiff failing, it is not disputed that the case must fall under article 181 of the indian limitation, act. that being so, i hold that the present application is barred by the law of limitation.13. the plaintiff applies that final orders on this application may be deferred .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 15 1937 (PC)

The Commisioner of Income-tax Vs. the Mazagaon Dock Limited

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-15-1937

Reported in : (1938)40BOMLR343

..... allowance for that year, and so on for succeeding years; and(c) the aggregate of all such allowance made under this act or any act repeated hereby, or under the indian income-tax act, 188s, shall, in no case, exceed the original cost to the assessee of the buildings, machinery, plant, or furniture, ..... allowance for that year, and so on for succeeding years ; and(c) the aggregate of all such allowances made under this act or any act repealed hereby, or under the indian income-tax act, 1886, shall, in no case, exceed the original cost to the assessee of the buildings, machinery, plant, or furniture, as ..... answered in the negative.blackwell, j.1. this is a reference by the commissioner of income-tax under section 66 (2) of the indian income-tax act, xi of 1922, at the instance of a company, named the mazagaon dock, limited, of a question of law which has arisen out ..... and not to the company. he said that section 26 (2) as it now stands only came into existence by virtue of the indian income-tax (amendment) act, 1928 (iii of 1928), that no reference was made to this section in the privy council case, and that the privy council ..... indian income-tax act raising the question, whether, in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax officer has correctly computed the depreciation allowance under section 10(2) (vi) of the act on the original cost to the assessee company itself, notwithstanding the fact that it was being assessed under section 26 [2) of the act as the successor to the partnership .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 15 1937 (PC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. the Mazagaon Dock Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-15-1937

Reported in : [1938]6ITR124(Bom)

..... allowance of the at year, and so on for succeeding years; and(c) the aggregate of all such allowances made under the act or any act repealed hereby, or under the indian income tax act, 1886, shall, in no case, exceed the original cost to the assessee of the buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, ..... allowance for that year and so on for succeeding years; and(c) the aggregate of all such allowances made under this act or any act repealed hereby, or under the indian income-tax act 1886, shall, in no case exceed the original cost to the assessee of the buildings, machinery, plant or furniture as ..... be answered in negative.per blackwell, j. - this is a reference but the commissioner of income tax under sec. 66(2) of the indian income tax act, xi of 1922, at the instance of a company, named the mazagaon dock limited, of a question of law which has arisen out of ..... firm and not to the company. he said that sec. 26(2) as it now stands only came into existence by virtue of the indian income-tax (amendment) act, (iii of 1928), that no reference was made to this section in the privy council case, and the privy council decision in that ..... indian income-tax act raising the question, whether in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax officer has correctly computed the depreciation allowance under sec. 10(2) (vi) of the act on the original cost to the assessee company itself, notwithstanding the fact that it was being assessed under sec. 26(2) of the act as the successor to the partnership .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 18 1937 (PC)

Gulamkhaja Mahamad Ibrahim Vs. Shivlal Hiralal

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-18-1937

Reported in : AIR1938Bom295; (1938)40BOMLR381; 175Ind.Cas.939

..... minor members of a joint family would not be bound by the new business started by the manager or the father, because the new business would mean a sort of partnership to which all the members must be partners and that implies a contractual obligation which a minor cannot incur. it appears that an argument had been urged before their lordships ..... allahabad rulings, whatever may be the period of limitation against the father, the period of limitation against the sons would be six years under the residuary article 120 of the indian limitation act [narsingh misra v. lalji misra i.l.r. (1901) ail 206 brijnandan singh v. bidya prasad singh. i.l.r. (1915) cal. 1068] but that difference of the opinion ..... conceded that the period of limitation in the present case far the personal liability of the father under the registered mortgage-deed is six years under article 116 of the indian limitation act. therefore, in any case, the period of limitation against the sons would also be six years from the date of the mortgage-deed. it is thus clear that the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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