Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.24 seconds)The Indian Partnership Act, 1932
Udhavji Anandji Ladha And Ors. vs Bapudas Ramdas Darbar on 13 April, 1949
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.
Section 4 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Lala Lachhman Das vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Punjab, ... on 29 July, 1947
In Lachhman Das's case (1948-16 ITR 35 P.C.) their Lordships did not consider the question whether a Hindu undivided family as such, which is a fleeting and changeable body, could enter into a partnership under the Partnership Act. Their Lordships pointed that the partnership is in its nature a contractual relationship and only such of its members as in fact enter into contractual relations with the stranger become partners.
Section 66 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1