Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)Santiranjan Das Gupta vs Dasuram Murzamull on 24 August, 1972
9. As would be seen from the aforesaid two
provisions, to determine whether a person is a partner in a
particular firm or not regard shall be had to the real relation
between the parties. In a case of an oral partnership, it can
be determined by the conduct of the parties and by various
surrounding circumstances which can clearly throw enough
light on the true nature of the relationship between the
parties. The profit sharing and share of losses is an
important incidence of any partnership concern. Any
isolated act by itself would not give rise to the presumption
that there is a partnership between the two persons or
group of persons unless the partnership between the
persons is entered into for carrying out any isolated
transaction itself. Here it would relevant to refer to the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Santiranjan Das
Gupta vs. Messers Dasuram Murzamull (1973) 3 SCC
463 where it was held that :
Section 6 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
The Indian Partnership Act, 1932
Section 41 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Gangadhar Madhavrao Bidwai vs Hanmantrao Vyankatrao Mungale on 7 December, 1994
10. It is a settled legal position that the plaintiff has to
stand on his own legs to prove his case and he cannot draw
his strength from the weaknesses in the case set up by the
defendant or in the evidence adduced by him. It was for the
appellant to adduce some positive evidence to establish his
oral partnership with the respondent and having failed to do
so this court does not find any reason to upset the findings
arrived at by the learned trial court. The evidence led by the
appellant was wholly inadequate to come to the conclusion
RFA No. 705/2003 Page 16 of 18
that the appellant had entered into a contract of partnership
with the respondent to carry on the transport business under
the name and style of M/s Sohi Goods (India). The appellant
cannot succeed to seek dissolution of the said firm and
rendition of accounts merely on account of the fact that in the
application form submitted by the firm to seek allotment of
the plot, the name of the appellant was mentioned as a
partner. The appellant has not denied the fact that the
amount of Rs. 5,500/- which was deposited in the name of the
firm was taken back by the appellant and thereafter no
contribution was made by the appellant towards the
allotment price of the said plot and therefore with the said
isolated act of the appellant being mentioned as a partner
in the application form would not result into believing that
there existed a partnership firm of the appellant and the
respondent which could entitle the appellant to seek
dissolution of the said firm and rendition of accounts. The
judgment cited by the counsel for the appellant in the case of
Gangadhar Madhavrao (supra) would not be of any help to
the case of the appellant as there the question for
RFA No. 705/2003 Page 17 of 18
consideration was whether a recital relating to the
partnership property in the deed of dissolution of partnership
was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration whereas
it is not such a case as the existence of partnership here is
itself in dispute.
Shankar Bandu vs Shankar Babaji And Ors. on 13 September, 1955
The other judgment of the Bombay High
Court in the case of Shankar Bandu (supra) cited by the
counsel for the appellant relates to the plea of benami and
would not be applicable to the facts of the case at hand as the
said plea of benami would only come into play once the
factum of partnership was established by the appellant.
1