Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-18-1959
Reported in : AIR1960Mad388
..... the joint family firm represented by the karta, and other parties. the distinction has been clearly recognised in s. 5 of the indian partnership act, and the following passage in mayne's hindu law (11th edition, p. 380) will be sufficient for this purpose.'it has ..... to hindu law governing a joint family, and to s. 5 of the indian partnership act.'we may here add that in desai on the 'law of partnership' (second edition, page 30), the distinction between the joint family firm and an ordinary commercial partnership; has been clearly set forth. upon this aspect, we need not add ..... and that his sons were not liable upon the contract. louis dreyfus and co. ltd. (plaintiffs) contended per contra that the first defendant firm was a partnership firm, with defendants 2, 3 and 4 as partners together. (after discussing the evidence the judgment proceeded:)(4) in view of all this evidence, we ..... of estoppel by conduct was stated long ago in pickard v. sears (1837) 6 ad & el 469, and has received statutory expression in the indian evidence act (section 115). the form in which it is usually stated is that:'where one by his words or conduct wilfully causes another to believe in the ..... that, under such circumstances, those members are estopped from denying the binding nature of the mortgage, on the ground that member had no power to act on behalf of the family.again, since it is clear that a prior transaction was approbated by second defendant, entered into with plaintiffs under identical circumstances .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-24-1959
Reported in : AIR1960Mad457; 39ITR308(Mad)
..... settled and the assets and liabilities were taken over by the new firm of which the plaintiff and defendant were the partners. this partnership was registered under the indian partnership act.it continued to do business until it was dissolved by agreement of parties on 17th january 1945. at the time of the dissolution ..... learned subordinate judge held further, that, even assuming that the income-tax officer had jurisdiction under sec. 28(1) of the act, after the dissolution of the partnership, to levy a penalty on the firm, the proceedings which ended in the order levying the penalty could not bind the defendant ..... the learned subordinate judge said that, during the accounting year, 1943-43, the illegal transactions had taken place during the father's period of partnership and that, therefore, the defendant could not be made liable for the penalty levied as for that year.the subordinate judge found also that ..... paid and half the expenses which the plaintiff had incurred.(7) the defendant in his written statement pleaded that, during the period of his partnership with the plaintiff, the affairs of the firm had been managed solely by the plaintiff, and that the defendant was a sleeping partner. the ..... becomes directly applicable, and one partner cannot sue the other for contribution.(16) the learned counsel for the appellant relied on sec. 69 of the indian contract act, for relief. sec. 69 enacts,"a person who is interested in the payment of money which another is bound by law to pay, and .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-30-1959
Reported in : AIR1960P& H614
..... a partial partition of the family as a result of which gurdip singh bolina had separated from shri karam singh kirti. in due course, intimation under s. 69 of the indian partnership act was given to the registrar of firms showing shri karam singh, gurdip singh bolina and thakar singh and the three partners of this newly constituted firm. this firm continued doing ..... some of these items to the central government.in order to have more finances to be able to make the supply of the goods to the central government a partnership firm under the indian partnership act was formed on 2-1-1956, vide exhibit p. 36. one thakar singh, a relation of shri karam singh kirti, was to be a sleeping or financing ..... view at the time and the mere fact that by converting the joint hindu family business into a registered partnership under the indian partnership act, the parties concerned could get some advantage from the income-tax levy, is no ground for holding that the registered partnership was a sham affair. there is nothing in law to prohibit the coparceners constituting a joins hindu family converting ..... the family business into a contractual partnership and thus legitimately get benefit from the income-tax otherwise payable by them .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-07-1959
Reported in : AIR1960Mad225; 1960CriLJ625
..... next case that needs to be referred to is calcutta motor and cycle co. v. collector of customs, . the petitioner in that case was a firm registered under the indian partnership act, and carrying on business in calcutta. the customs authorities had information that the firm had been importing goods without valid licences and had been contravening the provisions of the sea ..... from any other who may become incriminated, thereby as an accused in future proceedings."jagannadhadas j. who delivered the judgment of the court observed:"thus so far as the indian law is concerned it may be taken that the protection against self-incrimination continues more or less as in the english common law, so far as the accused and production ..... conduct proceedings which may terminate in the confiscation of goods or the imposition of penalties which they can themselves impose, without reference to any criminal court, customs officer are not acting as courts of law and the proceedings before them are not judicial proceedings--except for the limited purposes of ss. 193 and 228, penal code. (2) to the ..... customs act in various other ways. they applied for and obtained search warrants from the chief presidency magistrate, calcutta, and searched various premises and seized several properties. thereafter the customs authorities .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Feb-20-1959
Reported in : AIR1959Ker246; 40ITR353(Ker)
..... being borne by all in the proportion stated.' 9. it was suggested by counsel for the department that clause 7 is not in conformity with section 33(1) of the indian partnership act, 1932:'a partner may not be expelled from a firm by any majority of the partners, save in the exercise in good faith of powers conferred by contract between the ..... have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all.'as pointed out by lindley in his treatise on the law of ..... (1) when there is no partnership in law; or (2) when there is a partnership in law but it cannot be considered a genuine partnership. the genuineness of the arrangement is not disputed. the only contention before us is that the relationship created does not constitute a partnership in law.4. according to section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932:''partnership', is the relation between persons who ..... partnership when a statutory definition is provided by the legislature that definition taken in connection .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-09-1959
Reported in : AIR1961All409
..... right of a party to have a dispute decided by a private forum, the application amounted to a proceeding within the term of subsection (3) of section 69 of the indian partnership act (act ix of 1932). no question of the word 'proceeding' being ejusdem generis to 'a claim or set off' was raised before the learned civil judge, in the grounds of appeal ..... ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is (supra). this is a single judge ruling. the words 'or odier proceeding' occurring in section 69(3) of the indian partnership act came up for interpretation before the learned single judge. he was of the opinion that the words 'other proceeding' cannot be read to mean 'other proceedings in the suit'. he ..... of the particular case before us, we are of opinion that an application under section 20 of the indian arbitration act to enforce 'a right arising from a contract' in respect of an unregistered partnership is barred under the provisions of section 69(3) of the indian partnership act. 18. no other point has been pressed before us. 19. we are, therefore, of opinion that there ..... . we now proceed to consider the question raised before us as to whether an application under section 20 of the indian arbitration act is a 'proceeding' within the meaning of the word as used in sub-section (3) of section 69 of the indian partnership act. 8. before quoting the words of the section, we will refer to the rulings relied upon by the learned .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-04-1959
Reported in : AIR1960Ori123; 26(1960)CLT471
..... any reliance on these accounts to come to any definite finding. however, the suit not being maintainable under sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act, and even if it is maintainable, the suit having been barred by limitation these questions really do not arise.11. in the result, the appeal must ..... defendant no. 1 and challanged the finding of the trial judge in respect of both the bar under sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act as well as of limitation. he argued that the suit though filed in the name of popsing mahadeo prasad it was an individual suit by mahadeo prasad ..... . dasgupta and the suit being by an unregistered firm must be held to be barred under sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act.8. coming to the question of limitation, the suit admittedly was filed on 27-9-50. according to the defendant either article 61 or article 64 ..... no. 20 of 1951: (air 1960 orissa 119). in that case no specific plea under sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act was taken in the written statement, but there was necessary evidence for the application of that section to be found on the record. thus the ..... , came to the conclusion that the suit is clearly barred under sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act. he also held that whether article 61 or article 64 of the limitation act was applicable, the suit is barred by limitation. he further held that the plaintiff has not been successful to establish .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-30-1959
Reported in : AIR1959MP305
..... , being a suit on behalf of a joint hindu family firm, the provisions of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act were nofl artplicable; and that the plaintiff firm had suffered damages due to late delivery and delivery in a damaged condition, amounting to rs. 10,071/6/6 ..... , that it was barred by limitation and that it was not maintainable on the ground that the plaintiff firm was not registered under section 69 of the indian partnership act.9. the trial court held that the plaintiff firm was entitled to sue as assignee of the consignor 'man-gilal sualal' of mandsaur; that the suit ..... by the evidence on record.26. it is then contended that the suit was hit by the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act. but, as pointed out by the learned additional district judge, there is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff is a ..... civil procedure, amply satisfied the requirements of law and that no fresh notices of the claim in suit were necessary.11. under section 77 of the indian railways act, a person shall not be entitled to compensation for the loss, destruction or deterioration of goods delivered to a railway to be carried, unless his ..... by the additional district judge, balaghat, on the sole ground that the notices served by it on the respondent railway companies under section 77 of the indian railways act and under section 80 of the code of civil procedure were not legal and valid for the purposes. of the claim in suit.2. seth .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-29-1959
Reported in : AIR1959P& H617
..... arbitration was made only by rattan lal, the award by the arbitrator was liable to be set aside. for this conclusion, reliance was placed on section 19 (2) of the indian partnership act, it is clearly said therein that the implied authority of a partner does not empower him to submit a dispute relating to the business of the firm to arbitration. the ..... ratification by other partners? (2) whether the award is binding on the person who is party to a reference in spite of section 19 (2) of the indian partnership act and section 21 of the arbitration act? the question whether there is a ratification or acquiescence is a question of fact, which can be determined on particular, facts of each case. the case be ..... . narsingh das. 55 pun lr 231: (air 1953 punj 216). the judgment of single bench was reversed by the division bench and it was held :'section 21 of the indian arbitration act provides that where in any suit, all the parties interested agree that any matter in difference between them in the suit shall be referred to arbitration, they may apply in ..... das rup lal v. governor-general in council, 53 pun lr 231 : (air 1953 punj 234) by kapur j. in which it was held-'under section 19 of the indian arbitration act, ix of 1932, a partner has no authority to submit a dispute relating to the business of the firm to arbitration. but if the other partners raised no objection during .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-26-1959
Reported in : AIR1959SC781; Supp(2)SCR406
..... setting up the plea. thereafter the plaintiffs prayed for the amendment of the plaint by adding the following to the plaint as paragraph 10 : 'that even section 69 of the indian partnership act is not a bar to the present suit as the joint business referred to above was dissolved and in this suit the court is required only to go into the ..... by law and therefore the object of a collateral agreement is not unlawful under s. 23 of the contract act; and (6) partnership being an agreement within the meaning of s. 23 of the indian contract act, it is not unlawful, though its object is to carry on wagering transactions. we, therefore, hold that in the present case the ..... to the main and substantial point in the case. the problem presented, with its different facts, is whether the said agreement of partnership is unlawful within the meaning of s. 23 of the indian contract act. section 23 of the said act, omitting portions unnecessary for the present purpose, reads as follows : 'the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless - it is ..... the parties or under a substituted agreement between them; (4) under the gaming act, 1892, in view of its wide and comprehensive phraseology, even collateral contracts, including partnership agreements, are not enforceable; (5) s. 30 of the indian contract act is based upon the provisions of s. 18 of the gaming act, 1845, and though a wager is void and unenforceable, it is not forbidden .....Tag this Judgment!