Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)Section 4 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Bilas Kunwar vs Desraj Ranjit Singh And Ors. on 13 July, 1915
46. The argument in support of this contention is that the benamdar is in the position of a trustee in English law. The Judicial Committee has pointed out in the case of Mr. Bilash Kunwar v. Desraj, reported in 42 Ind App 202 : (AIR 1915 PC 98), that there is a great resemblance between a benami transaction and a resulting trust.
Article 90 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
F.J.R. Kerwick vs K.M. Kerwick on 3 August, 1920
The principles laid down in Kerwick v. Kerwick 47 Ind App, 275: (AIR 1921 PC 56), for determining whether the transaction was benami was applied in this case 47 lad App 275: (AIR 1921 PC 56) related to immovable property. The observation of Lord Atkinson made in 47 Ind App 275: (AIR 1921 IPC 56) is quoted by Lord Parmoor at p. 240 of the Report 55 IA (at p. 173 of AIR) and reads as follows:--
The Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891
Dharwar Bank Ltd. vs Mahomed Hayat on 29 August, 1930
It is not correct to say that the benamidar has no existence apart from the person whose benamidar
he is. Though the relationship cannot be equated to that of a trustee and cestul que trust, the law recognises the existence of the benamdar apart from the person whose benamdar he is. Vis-a-vis all the people except the owner, the benamdar has the legal title to the property, of which he is the ostensible owner. Benamdar has all the rights of the ostensible owner and he can institute suit in his own name and the defendant is not entitled to non-suit him on proof that he is nothing more than a benamdar. When two persons enter into a partnership, agreement, there is an agreement between two real persons even though one is the benamdar of the other. It satisfies all the conditions laid down in Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act. It would be a good partnership in the eye of law. It is not necessapy to consider whether a third party having transaction with such a partnership can question the existence of such a partnership. Having regard to the accepted law that a benamdar can sue and be sued against. I am apt to think that the third, party cannot question the existence of partnership. Whether one of the partners holds the share, for the benefit of the other partners, is no concern of anybody else. In determining the relationship between the partners one of which is the benamdar of the other, and in adjusting their rights inter se, I do not find any reason why the rules regarding benami transaction cannot be made applicable, in my judgment there is nothing inconsistent in this. If law recognises that a person is entitled to carry on business not for his own benefit but for the benefit of somebody else or in other words as benamdar of others, I do not see why he cannot be the benamdar of his co-partner, i.e., bold his share not for himself but for his co-partner. In the instant case the defendant Amir Hasan makes a case in his pleading that he and his father, Md. Ibrahim were jointly entitled to a 2/7th share. It suggests that the father and son constituted a single entity having 2/7th share jointly. This makes it easier to apply the rule of benami in the instant case. In my judgment there is nothing in the law of partnership to prevent the plaintiff from making a case that apart from having a share in his own name Md. Ibrahim was holding a further share in the partnership in the benami of his son, Amir Hasan. I should
however note that it was never the intention of the partners right from its inception to carry on the business in co-partnership. It was the intention of the partners that the business would be carried on by them as members of a private company.
1