Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)The Indian Contract Act, 1872
The Court-fees Act, 1870
A.V.S. Sathappa Chetty And Anr. vs S.N. Subramanian Chetty on 19 July, 1927
The Judicial Committee in an appeal cited to us from Sathappa Chetti v. Subramanian Chetti 33 Beav. 577 held that in the absence of evidence that there had been art-, previous dissolution, a partnership between the plaintiff and the defendant was dissolved by what their Lordships described as writ and plaint claiming dissolution. No doubt the expression "writ" applies to its Indian counterpart "summons." The position therefore is that whatever the pleading in this case may be, the partnership between the parties was dissolved on the date of the plaint and there was nothing for the Court to do in that respect except to declare that all the relief which the Court was called upon to give was solely to order the taking of an account. For the purposes of Court-fee this is a suit to which Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court-fees Act is applicable.
Section 42 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Section 43 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Bhogilal vs Popatbhai on 21 December, 1882
The Bench of the Bombay High Court in Bhogilal v. Popatbhai (1896) Weekly Notes 3 took the view that a plaintiff who sought the relief contemplated by Section 265 of the Contract Act should pay the ad valorem stamp-fee required by a suit for an account under Section 7, Clause (iv)(f) of the Court-fees Act of 1870. Section 265 of the Contract Act which was the part of the Act dealing with partnership provides that where a partner is entitled to claim a dissolution of partnership, or where a partnership has terminated, the Court may in the absence of any contract to the contrary, wind up the business of the partnership, provide for the payment of its debts and distribute the surplus according to the shares of the partners respectively. The action in that case as described by the learned District Judge contained a claim for an account and a winding up of partnership. It was argued before us, that the proper provision of the Act applicable to such a case was article 17-B of the Second Schedule which deals with claims incapable of valuation. Such a contention is wholly wrong. A claim for partnership may not be capable of precise valuation, but that it is not capable of valuation at all is entirely unarguable. The result will be that as this is a matter in which the plaintiff was entitled to place his own valuation upon his claim under Section 7, Clause (iv)(f) the order of the learned District Munsiff was right. Incidentally I may add that I consider that no question under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code arises.
1