Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.35 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 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.
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 Dass case 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 out that the partnership is in its nature a contractual relationship and only such of its members as in fact enter into contractual relationships with the stranger become partners.
Section 66 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1