Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.77 seconds)
Documents citing Man Mohan Das And Ors. vs Mohendra Bhowal on 5 February, 1948

Vinod Kumar Sethi And Ors. vs State Of Punjab And Anr. on 30 March, 1982

46. It is unnecessary to quote profusely from Indian authorities and reference in this connection may be made to Bhupendra Nath Sinha v. Girdhari Lal Nagar, AIR 1933 Cal 582; Man Mohan Das v. Mohendra Bhowal, AIR 1948 Cal 292; Priyanshu Ranjan Datta v. Hirendra Kumar Mitra, ILR (1949)Cal 454; and Jaikrishna v. Crown, AIR 1950 Nag 99. The broad rationale underlying the view that a partner cannot be prosecuted by another partner for criminal breach of trust, in respect of partnership property, is a twin one. The nature, character and incident of partnership property are such that during the subsistence of partnership, there cannot be, except by special agreement, any entrustment or dominion etc. within the ambit of Section 405, Indian Penal Code. Secondly, partnership property is not always specifically ascertainable and sometimes so equivocal and problemetic in nature (until dissolution of partnership or rendition of accounts) that it is not susceptible of being used in a manner which can bring into play S. 405, Indian Penal Code. Now as I said above, there is undoubtedly a point of distinction in so far as partnership property is deemed to be in joint ownership in law. Even keeping that sharp distinction, in mind, it appears to me that this larger rationale is equally attracted to the conjugal relationship. The nature, character and the incident of property within the matrimonial home, so long as the marriage subsists, seem to be such that except by a special written agreement, no entrustment or dominion etc. of the individual property of the spouses to each other can be presumed. Equally, herein the specific and ascertainable property of each spouse within the matrimonial home can be so equivocal and problematic so as to oust the requisite mens rea with consequent criminality with regard thereto until the title to such property is clearly and specifically established. If the civil remedy seems to be adequate betwixt partners, during the subsistence of partnership there is no reason why it would not equally be so betwixt spouses in an existing matrimonial home during the subsistence of the conjugal relationship. As already referred to, apart from the civil remedy under the general law, added provisions exist in this context under S. 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act buttressed by the procedural provisions of O. 32-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 60 - Full Document

C.V. Krishnan vs Virji Kunverji And Anr. on 11 December, 1958

In another Division Bench case, Man Mohan Das v. Mohendra Bhowal, 49 Cri LJ 543: (AIR 1948 Cal 292), it was held that one partner could not be prosecuted under Section 424, Indian Penal Code for dishonestly or fraudulently concealing or removing the books of partnership, and that the proper remedy was in such a case to claim dissolution of partnership and accounts in a properly framed suit. If, therefore, a partner cannot be criminally prosecuted even if he fraudulently conceals or removes all the books of partnership, it is difficult to see how he could be prosecuted if he had made a false entry in one of the partnership books.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1