Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing Udhavji Anandji Ladha And Ors. vs Bapudas Ramdas Darbar on 13 April, 1949

Ram Kumar Ram Niwas Nanpara vs Commr. Of Income-Tax, U.P. And Ajmer ... on 29 August, 1952

It is said that from this quotation it appears that a joint Hindu family as such is a unit which can enter into a partnership. Partnership is a contractual relationship which can be entered into only by some one who is entitled to enter into a contract and it is possible that the Karta or the adult members of the family, acting within their rights under the Hindu law, may be able to enter into a partnership and make the entire joint family liable for the debts of the partnership and entitled to the benefits thereof, but in point of law it is only those who enter into the contract who can be deemed to be the partners, though they may be there in their representative capacity on behalf of the family. This view is not in conflict with the view expressed by the learned Chief Justice in --'Udhavji Anandji Ladha's case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 10 - V Bhargava - Full Document

Ram Kumar Ramniwas Of Nanpara vs Re. on 29 August, 1952

It is said that from this quotation it appears that a joint Hindu family as such is a unit which can enter into a partnership. Partnership is a contractual relationship which can be entered into only by some one who is entitled to enter into a contract and it is possible that the karta or the adult members of the family, acting within their rights under the Hindu law, may be able to enter into a partnership and make the entire joint family liable for the debts of the partnership and entitled to the benefits thereof but in point of law it is only those who enter into the contract who can be deemed to be the partners, though they may be there in their representative capacity on behalf of the family. This view is not in conflict with the view expressed by the learned Chief Justice in Udhavji Anandji Ladhas case. In that case a partnership was started between the plaintiffs father and the defendant No. 1 in 1994. The plaintiffs father died on April 30, 1927. The plaintiff filed a suit, out of which the appeal arose, for dissolution of partnership and for accounts alleging that even after the death of his father the partnership had continued. In 1935 the plaintiff applied for amending the plaint and added an alternative cause of action that even if after the death of the plaintiffs father there was no subsisting partnership and the partnership stood dissolved on his death, limitation was saved on other grounds mentioned in the application. The greater part of the judgment is devoted to the question whether limitation was saved by certain acknowledgments. If the learned Chief Justice had accepted the view now pressed for by Mr. Pathak that the partnership was not with the plaintiffs father but with the joint family as such, then the partnership was not with the plaintiffs father but with the joint family as such, then the partnership would not have stood dissolved on the death of the plaintiffs father and no question of limitation would have arisen. The observations relied on were with respect to the point whether it is only the personal property of the manager or the entire joint family property of the manager or the entire joint family property that was liable for the debts of the partnership which had been entered into on behalf of the joint family and we respectfully agree with the view expressed by the learned Chief Justice that if a manager has had the right under the Hindu law to enter into the partnership the entire joint family property may be made liable for the debts of the partnership.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jaiwant Rao And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 17 August, 1960

AIR 1933 Pat 38, Ali Husain v. Lachmi Narain, AIR 1932 All 188 and a Division Bench is bound by the decision of another Division Bench : vide (S) AIR 1955 Andhra 87 (FB), Saslii Bhusan v. Bhuneshwar Rai, (S) AIR 1955 Pat 124, Dr. K.C. Nambiar v. State of Madras, AIR 1953 Mad 351, Gangasahai v. Bharat Bhan, AIR 1950 All 480, Udhavji Anandji v. Bapudas Ramdas, AIR 1950 Bom 94, Ajudhia Pershad Ram Pershad v. Sham Sunder, AIR 1947 Lah 13 (FB)) and he cannot ignore or disregard the earlier decision, unless such decision has been overruled by a Full Bench or the Supreme Court.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 30 - Cited by 2 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Hassan Chand And Sons on 22 April, 1996

28. It may be mentioned that earlier there was no corresponding provision like Section 37 in the repealed Sections 239 to 266 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which were replaced by the present Indian Partnership Act, 1932. By giving a place to this section in the present Partnership Act a well recognised principle of partnership law embodied in analogous Section 42 of the (U. K.) Partnership Act, 1890, and which principle is that if, after the dissolution of a partnership firm, a partner has used assets or the profits which are attributable to the share of a different partner, he must either pay interest or the profits which have resulted by the use of the moneys of the other partner, was given legal recognition in the Indian partnership law. Even prior to the legal recognition having been so given, the Indian courts applied the equitable principle underlying this section to suits for accounts of partnership (vide Udhavji Anandji Ladha v. Bapudas Ramdas Darbar, AIR 1950 Bom 94 (DB)). What Section 37 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, aims at is to avoid taking of unfair advantage by the surviving partners of the share and interest of the deceased partner in the business and assets of the partnership. The object of this provision is to award compensation, for the excessive use of moneys or other assets belonging to a firm by one or some of the partners, to the partner or his heirs who did not continue to carry on the business. The principle underlying this section is in fact based on and invokes the equitable jurisdiction of the court to grant relief in a case where the surviving partner has carried on the business of the firm with the property of the firm without any final settlement between him and the outgoing partner. Till the final settlement, the amount due to the retiring partner or the estate of a deceased partner out of the firm's assets not paid over to him or his legal representatives but utilised by surviving partners for continuing the business is treated as a loan by the former to the latter and interest is awarded thereon though, in fact, there was no contract for a loan and payment of interest. The character of the amount of interest due to the retiring partner in the unsettled accounts of the business which is being carried on by the remaining or surviving partners or the profits attributable to the use of his share in the partnership assets being basically of the nature of loan it would be illogical to make the estate of the deceased a partner or his legal representatives share the losses of the business being so continued and carried on by the living partners. That being the nature of such a right the guardian of the estate of the deceased or the legal representative does not become a partner in the firm.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Bank Of India, Ernakulam vs T.J. Stephen And Ors. on 1 February, 1989

7. An implied promise by acknowledgment really spells a new cause of action. A reading of Section 18 of the Limitation Act with the explanation would make it clear that Indian Law does not accept the theory of implied promise. There are ever so many cases of different High Courts and of the Privy Council wherein it has been made clear that an acknowledgment need not contain a promise to pay express or implied. Vide AIR 1950 Bom 94 (Udhavji Anandji v. Bapudas Ramdas), AIR 1936 Madras 939 (Subba-rayudu v. Narasinha Reddi) and AIR 1940 PC 63 (Rama Shah v. Lal Chand).
Kerala High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Firm Kamta Prasad Jagannath Prasad vs Gulzari Lal And Anr. on 12 October, 1954

The latest decision of the Bombay High Court brought to our notice is -- 'Udhavji Anandji v. Bapudas Ramdas', AIR 1950 Bom 94 (F) where it was held that an acknowledgment of liability passed not within the period prescribed by the first Schedule but during the extended period allowed by Section 6 constitutes an acknowledgment within Section 19 and can start a fresh period of limitation.
Allahabad High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 8 - V Bhargava - Full Document

Ramanbhai Shamalbhai Patel Heirs Of vs Ravjibhai Motibhai Patel & 4 on 30 June, 2014

8.1 In Udhavji Anandji Ladha and others Vs Bapudas Ramdas Darbar [AIR 1950 Bombay 94], it was held that "The scheme of the Limitation Act is to determine the period of limitation not merely by looking at the first Schedule but by looking at the first schedule in conjunction with Ss. 4 to 25 of the Act. Reading the first schedule along with S. 6 of the Act, the period of limitation prescribed for a suit by a minor is not the period mentioned in the first schedule, but a special period as mentioned in S. 6.".
Gujarat High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 3 - N V Anjaria - Full Document
1   2 Next