Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
GANGA NATH, J.
Nathi Lal - Appellant
Versus
Sri Mal & Anr. - Respondent
Decided On : 22-12-1939
ORDER
Ganga Nath, J. - This is an application in revision by the plaintiff against the decree of the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Agra, dismissing a suit. The applicant brought a suit against the defendants for contribution of the loss sustained by the parties in a single transaction of purchase of 25 tons of linseed. The learned Judge, Small Cause Court, has dismissed the suit as barred by Section 69, Partnership Act, on the ground that there was no registered partnership. It is contended for the applicant that a single transaction does not amount to "business." The "partnership" is defined in the Partnership Act as:
Partnership is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all.
2. A single transaction or venture does not amount to "business." In AIR 1930 300 (Privy Council) , their Lordships observed:
No doubt a single venture, where a single article or a number of articles on the single contract are purchased and sold, may not amount to a business. But where a number of bales are purchased at one time, sales are to go on, profits are to be realized and those profits are to be divided among the partners, it is not a single venture and amounts to partnership within Section 4.
3. In this case there was a single venture and consequently it does not come under "business" as mentioned in Section 4, Partnership Act. The suit was, therefore, maintainable. It is therefore ordered that the application be allowed, the order of the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, be set aside and the case be sent back to the lower Court to be re-admitted under its original number and to be disposed of in accordance with law. No order is made as to costs, as the chief defendant (defendant 1) is absent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
