SlideShare uma empresa Scribd logo
1 de 8
Baixar para ler offline
Study of cases from High Court and Supreme Court
Case 1
Birdichand Sukhraj Marwadi Vs. Harakchand Jagraj Marwadi
I. Parties of the case
Petitioner:
Birdichand Sukhraj Marwadi
Vs.
Respondent:
Harakchand Jagraj Marwadi
Date of Judgment- 15/12/1939
II. Court and Region
High Court of Nagpur
III. Act
Indian Partnership Act 1932, Contract Act 1872
IV. Issue related to the Case
Whether an isolated adventure for the purchase and sale of cotton entered into by
two persons who agree to share the profits or the losses makes them partners
within the meaning of the Partnership Act.
V. Facts of the Case
The plaintiff purchased cartloads of cotton from a third party and the defendant
held half the share in the profit or the loss arising out of the said transaction. Since
the price began to fall, the defendant told the plaintiff’s to sell it. The plaintiff did
so and in order to recover the extra loss caused due to selling off the defendant’s
share of the cotton, the plaintiff sued the defendant for his half share in the loss.
The defendant argued that the said transaction, even if accepted as constituting
partnership, can’t be the basis for the plaintiff’s claim as the firm was not
registered. Section 69 (1) applicable here.
VI. Judgement given for the case.
Trial Court: The transaction was a partnership transaction and as per s.69 the suit
could not lie.
High Court
i. (Law) The court stated that there is no doubt that an “isolated adventure” could
constitute a partnership. However, a basic requirement that must be fulfilled with
regards to this is that the adventure should constitute a business and this business
should be on the joint account. Partnership rests on agreement and so long as the
agreement contemplates an outgoing and an incoming on the joint account in
respect of a business, the partnership is complete and all subsequent rights and
liabilities are governed by laws which relate to partnership. There is a difference
between cases of purchase of property for a joint user from those in which it is
purchased for a joint endeavour.
ii. Since, there could be neither profit nor loss until the cotton was resold the
transaction was not merely to purchase cotton for the purpose of sharing it
between them but to resell it. The transaction was on their joint account. Both the
parties were to share the profit or bear the loss half and half. That meant that
neither could sell his half of the cotton as an independent transaction in which he
alone was interested without the consent of the other. Whatever was done had to
be done on the joint account. Therefore it was a clear case of partnership and the
suit could not lie because of Section 69(1), Partnership Act.
Case 2
Deputy Commissioner of Sales-Tax Vs. Messrs k. Kelukutty
I. Parties of the case
Petitioner:
Deputy Commissioner of Sales-Tax, (law) Board of Revenue
Vs.
Respondent:
Messrs k. Kelukutty
Date of Judgment- 03/05/1985
II. Court and Region
Kerala High Court and Kerala Supreme Court
III. Act
Indian Partnership Act 1932
IV. Issue related to the Case
i. Whether when the partners constituting a partnership firm carrying on one business
constitute thereafter another partnership firm carrying on a separate and distinct
business are there two distinct partnership firms in whose hand the turnover of the two
businesses falls to be respectively assessed or is there in law only a single partnership
firm liable to assessment on the turnover of both businesses?
ii. Which law is more apt in the present situation to be applied; partnership law or Tax
law?
V. Facts of the Case
The respondent is a partnership firm dealing in timber. When the firm’s Sales Tax
Officer was assessing the firm’s turnover, he discovered that the partners of the firm
owned a saw mill, and the partners in that saw mill were the same as in the
respondent firm. It was also discovered that the respondent had not included the
turnover of the saw mill in their own turnover. The sales officer took the view that
since both firms had identical partners they were effectively one firm and was to be
treated as such and therefore the turnover of the sale of sawdust had to be included in
the earlier assessment made on the respondent firm. The Appellate Assistant
Commissioner, Sales Tax upheld the assessment order.
VI. Judgement given for the case.
Kerala High Court:
The two firms were separate firms in the eyes of law.
Kerala Supreme Court:
i. When an assessing officer agrees to assess the turnover of a firm, he must make sure
that the venture is a firm. This can be done by applying the necessary partnership
law modifying it according to the tax law applicable. The Kerala General Sales-Tax
Act contains no provision regarding this only partnership law should be
applied.[w.r.t issue ii]
ii. It is the partnership agreement that forms a partnership relationship, thus making it a
partnership’s basis. Partnership agreement may define different partnership relations
and thereby define different firms. The partners may be different and yet the
nature of the business may be the same, the business may be different and yet
the partners may be same. An agreement between the partners to carry on a
business and share its profits may be followed by a separate agreement between the
same partners to carry on another business and share the profits therein. The
intention may be to constitute two separate partnerships and therefore two distinct
firms. Each partnership is a distinct relationship. It will all depend on the intention
of the partners. [w.r.t Issue i]
They did not conclude as to the question whether there was one firm or two because
of lack of relevant evidence and asked Kerala General Sales-Tax authorities to find it.
They referred the case to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, sales Tax for taking
up the appeal and resolved it in the light of their findings.
Case 3
Deputy Commissioner of Sales-Tax Vs. Messrs k. Kelukutty
I. Parties of the case
Petitioner:
Khushal Khemgar Shah & Ors.
Vs.
Respondent:
Khorshed Banu Dadiba Boatwalla & Anr.
Date of Judgment- 15/01/1960
II. Court and Region
High Court and Supreme Court
III. Act
Indian Partnership Act 1932
IV. Issue related to the Case
Whether the good-will of a firm is an asset or not?
V. Facts of the Case
D, who was one of eight partners in a firm, died on February 20, 1957. By virtue of a
provision in the partnership deed, the business of the firm was continued by the
surviving partners. The respondents, being the widow and son of D commenced an
action for an account of the partnership between D and the surviving partners,
claiming for the payment of the amount determined to be due to D at the time of his
death.
VI. Judgement given for the case
High Court (single judge): Ordered a decree for the account till Feb 20, 1957.
Division Bench: On appeal modified the decree holding that the respondents were
entitled only to interest at 6 % p.a. on the amount of D’s share in the assets of the
partnership, including good-will.
Supreme Court:
Contention (Appellants): Respondents as legal representatives of D were not entitled
to a share in the value of the good- will of the firm because good-will may be taken
into account only when there is a dissolution and not otherwise and furthermore,
because D had agreed that his interest in the good-will would cease after his death
and the business shall be continued by the surviving, partners.
A.N. Grover, J.C. Shah and K.S.Hegde, JJ. (Dismissed the appeal)
i. The good-will of a firm is an asset of the firm. In case of partnership business
continued by the surviving partners after the death of a partner, the Court can award
to the legal representatives of the deceased partner a share in the goodwill in the
absence of an express stipulation to the contrary.
ii. In interpreting the deed of partnership, the Court will insist upon some indication that
the right to a share in the assets is, by virtue of the agreement that the surviving
partners are entitled to carry on the business on the death of the partner, to be
extinguished. In the absence of a provision, the normal rule that the share of a partner
in the assets devolves upon his legal representatives will apply to the good-will as
well as to other assets.
iii. There is no indication in s. 55 of the Partnership Act that goodwill may be taken into
account only when there is a general dissolution of the firm and not when the
representatives of a partner claim his share in the firm, which by express stipulations
is to continue notwithstanding the death of a partner. Nor do ss. 39, 42 and 46 of the
Act support such a contention.
Bibliography
Birdichand And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court May 9, 1957).
Wanchoo. (n.d.). Birdichand And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan. Retrieved from Indian Kanoon:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1123952/?type=print
Singhvi, G. (n.d.). V.N.Shrikhande vs Anita Sena Fernandes. Retrieved from Indian Kanoon:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1421311/
C, S. (n.d.). Khushal Khemgar Shah & Ors vs Khorshed Banu Dadiba Boatwalla. Retrieved
from Indian Kanoon: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1581571/
Stone, C. J. (n.d.). Birdichand Sukhraj Marwadi Vs. Harakchand Jagraj Marwadi. Retrieved
from Casemine:
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e2f64a932619d903cde9

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Unit 4 oppression & mismanagement
Unit 4 oppression & mismanagementUnit 4 oppression & mismanagement
Unit 4 oppression & mismanagement
anjalidixit21
 
Breach of Contract & Remedies
Breach of Contract & RemediesBreach of Contract & Remedies
Breach of Contract & Remedies
Mereia Kali
 
Lifting the Corporate Veil
Lifting the Corporate Veil Lifting the Corporate Veil
Lifting the Corporate Veil
Radhika Gohel
 

Mais procurados (20)

Takeover of Companies
Takeover of CompaniesTakeover of Companies
Takeover of Companies
 
Unit 4 oppression & mismanagement
Unit 4 oppression & mismanagementUnit 4 oppression & mismanagement
Unit 4 oppression & mismanagement
 
Company Law - Piercing the Corporate Veil
Company Law - Piercing the Corporate VeilCompany Law - Piercing the Corporate Veil
Company Law - Piercing the Corporate Veil
 
Holding company
Holding companyHolding company
Holding company
 
Joint Ventures in India - Options, Regulations and Restrictions for Foreign C...
Joint Ventures in India - Options, Regulations and Restrictions for Foreign C...Joint Ventures in India - Options, Regulations and Restrictions for Foreign C...
Joint Ventures in India - Options, Regulations and Restrictions for Foreign C...
 
Breach of Contract & Remedies
Breach of Contract & RemediesBreach of Contract & Remedies
Breach of Contract & Remedies
 
Share and share capital
Share and share capitalShare and share capital
Share and share capital
 
Indian partnership act,1932 "Dissolution"
Indian partnership act,1932 "Dissolution"Indian partnership act,1932 "Dissolution"
Indian partnership act,1932 "Dissolution"
 
Dissolution of partership firm
Dissolution of partership firmDissolution of partership firm
Dissolution of partership firm
 
Debentures
DebenturesDebentures
Debentures
 
ALTER EGO THEORY - LIFTING THE CORPORATE VEIL
ALTER EGO THEORY - LIFTING THE CORPORATE VEILALTER EGO THEORY - LIFTING THE CORPORATE VEIL
ALTER EGO THEORY - LIFTING THE CORPORATE VEIL
 
Bailment, Pledge and Hypothecation
Bailment, Pledge and HypothecationBailment, Pledge and Hypothecation
Bailment, Pledge and Hypothecation
 
ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION
ARTICLES  OF  ASSOCIATIONARTICLES  OF  ASSOCIATION
ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION
 
Remedies Of Breach of contract(law)
Remedies Of Breach of contract(law)Remedies Of Breach of contract(law)
Remedies Of Breach of contract(law)
 
LIQUIDATION OF COMPANIES
LIQUIDATION OF COMPANIESLIQUIDATION OF COMPANIES
LIQUIDATION OF COMPANIES
 
Corporate restructuring
Corporate restructuringCorporate restructuring
Corporate restructuring
 
Constitution of India: Dissolution of Partnership
Constitution of India: Dissolution of PartnershipConstitution of India: Dissolution of Partnership
Constitution of India: Dissolution of Partnership
 
Winding up of LLP
Winding up of LLPWinding up of LLP
Winding up of LLP
 
Adv. Sagar Bansal - Company Law Prospectus
Adv. Sagar Bansal - Company Law ProspectusAdv. Sagar Bansal - Company Law Prospectus
Adv. Sagar Bansal - Company Law Prospectus
 
Lifting the Corporate Veil
Lifting the Corporate Veil Lifting the Corporate Veil
Lifting the Corporate Veil
 

Semelhante a Business Law - Study of cases from High Court and Supreme Court

Chaiken v. Employment Security Commission Delaware Supreme Court cas.pdf
Chaiken v. Employment Security Commission Delaware Supreme Court cas.pdfChaiken v. Employment Security Commission Delaware Supreme Court cas.pdf
Chaiken v. Employment Security Commission Delaware Supreme Court cas.pdf
secunderbadtirumalgi
 
7-Indian-contract-act-by-CA-Ankita-Patni.pdf
7-Indian-contract-act-by-CA-Ankita-Patni.pdf7-Indian-contract-act-by-CA-Ankita-Patni.pdf
7-Indian-contract-act-by-CA-Ankita-Patni.pdf
PrakritiSengupta
 

Semelhante a Business Law - Study of cases from High Court and Supreme Court (20)

Underlying principles governing relationship between partners
Underlying principles governing relationship between partnersUnderlying principles governing relationship between partners
Underlying principles governing relationship between partners
 
Partnership act
Partnership actPartnership act
Partnership act
 
16818IndianPartnershipact.pdf
16818IndianPartnershipact.pdf16818IndianPartnershipact.pdf
16818IndianPartnershipact.pdf
 
Partnership
PartnershipPartnership
Partnership
 
Assignment_Contract_II_.pdf
Assignment_Contract_II_.pdfAssignment_Contract_II_.pdf
Assignment_Contract_II_.pdf
 
Partners and Outsiders
Partners and OutsidersPartners and Outsiders
Partners and Outsiders
 
Presentation on registration of a partnership firm
Presentation on registration of a partnership firmPresentation on registration of a partnership firm
Presentation on registration of a partnership firm
 
Partnership Law in Malaysia
Partnership Law in MalaysiaPartnership Law in Malaysia
Partnership Law in Malaysia
 
Chaiken v. Employment Security Commission Delaware Supreme Court cas.pdf
Chaiken v. Employment Security Commission Delaware Supreme Court cas.pdfChaiken v. Employment Security Commission Delaware Supreme Court cas.pdf
Chaiken v. Employment Security Commission Delaware Supreme Court cas.pdf
 
Unit-3 Contract-II.pdf
Unit-3  Contract-II.pdfUnit-3  Contract-II.pdf
Unit-3 Contract-II.pdf
 
Mohd Nazim, Partnership, mercantile law
Mohd Nazim, Partnership, mercantile lawMohd Nazim, Partnership, mercantile law
Mohd Nazim, Partnership, mercantile law
 
CPT Imp MCQs on Partnership Act
CPT Imp MCQs on Partnership ActCPT Imp MCQs on Partnership Act
CPT Imp MCQs on Partnership Act
 
Chapter 37: Nature of Corporations
Chapter 37: Nature of CorporationsChapter 37: Nature of Corporations
Chapter 37: Nature of Corporations
 
Patrnership
PatrnershipPatrnership
Patrnership
 
P
PP
P
 
Low Cost Hotels
Low Cost HotelsLow Cost Hotels
Low Cost Hotels
 
7-Indian-contract-act-by-CA-Ankita-Patni.pdf
7-Indian-contract-act-by-CA-Ankita-Patni.pdf7-Indian-contract-act-by-CA-Ankita-Patni.pdf
7-Indian-contract-act-by-CA-Ankita-Patni.pdf
 
Partnership Act
Partnership ActPartnership Act
Partnership Act
 
Company Law and Partnership - Partners and Outsiders (Notes)
Company Law and Partnership - Partners and Outsiders (Notes)Company Law and Partnership - Partners and Outsiders (Notes)
Company Law and Partnership - Partners and Outsiders (Notes)
 
Partners and Outsiders in a Partnership
Partners and Outsiders in a PartnershipPartners and Outsiders in a Partnership
Partners and Outsiders in a Partnership
 

Mais de GurbaniLuthra

Mais de GurbaniLuthra (8)

Creating a B2B Business Plan - DroneAcharya
Creating a B2B Business Plan - DroneAcharyaCreating a B2B Business Plan - DroneAcharya
Creating a B2B Business Plan - DroneAcharya
 
Audit Process of Oil India Limited
Audit Process of Oil India LimitedAudit Process of Oil India Limited
Audit Process of Oil India Limited
 
Analysis of Financial Statements of CARE India in 2020
Analysis of Financial Statements of CARE India in 2020Analysis of Financial Statements of CARE India in 2020
Analysis of Financial Statements of CARE India in 2020
 
Social Branding: Tata Brand as a Relationship Builder
Social Branding: Tata Brand as a Relationship BuilderSocial Branding: Tata Brand as a Relationship Builder
Social Branding: Tata Brand as a Relationship Builder
 
Company Analysis of Pantaloons
Company Analysis of PantaloonsCompany Analysis of Pantaloons
Company Analysis of Pantaloons
 
Introduction to Depository Systems of India
Introduction to Depository Systems of IndiaIntroduction to Depository Systems of India
Introduction to Depository Systems of India
 
Analysis of Financial Statements of Tata Consultancy Services in 2020
Analysis of Financial Statements of Tata Consultancy Services in 2020Analysis of Financial Statements of Tata Consultancy Services in 2020
Analysis of Financial Statements of Tata Consultancy Services in 2020
 
Role of Auditors in Punjab National Bank Scam
Role of Auditors in Punjab National Bank ScamRole of Auditors in Punjab National Bank Scam
Role of Auditors in Punjab National Bank Scam
 

Último

Interpretation of statute topics for project
Interpretation of statute topics for projectInterpretation of statute topics for project
Interpretation of statute topics for project
VarshRR
 
一比一原版(USC毕业证书)南加州大学毕业证学位证书
一比一原版(USC毕业证书)南加州大学毕业证学位证书一比一原版(USC毕业证书)南加州大学毕业证学位证书
一比一原版(USC毕业证书)南加州大学毕业证学位证书
irst
 
一比一原版(Griffith毕业证书)格里菲斯大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(Griffith毕业证书)格里菲斯大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(Griffith毕业证书)格里菲斯大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(Griffith毕业证书)格里菲斯大学毕业证如何办理
bd2c5966a56d
 
一比一原版(CQU毕业证书)中央昆士兰大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(CQU毕业证书)中央昆士兰大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(CQU毕业证书)中央昆士兰大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(CQU毕业证书)中央昆士兰大学毕业证如何办理
Airst S
 
一比一原版(Warwick毕业证书)华威大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(Warwick毕业证书)华威大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(Warwick毕业证书)华威大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(Warwick毕业证书)华威大学毕业证如何办理
Fir La
 
一比一原版(IC毕业证书)帝国理工学院毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(IC毕业证书)帝国理工学院毕业证如何办理一比一原版(IC毕业证书)帝国理工学院毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(IC毕业证书)帝国理工学院毕业证如何办理
Fir La
 
一比一原版(ECU毕业证书)埃迪斯科文大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(ECU毕业证书)埃迪斯科文大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(ECU毕业证书)埃迪斯科文大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(ECU毕业证书)埃迪斯科文大学毕业证如何办理
Airst S
 
一比一原版(Monash毕业证书)澳洲莫纳什大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(Monash毕业证书)澳洲莫纳什大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(Monash毕业证书)澳洲莫纳什大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(Monash毕业证书)澳洲莫纳什大学毕业证如何办理
F La
 
一比一原版(TheAuckland毕业证书)新西兰奥克兰大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(TheAuckland毕业证书)新西兰奥克兰大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(TheAuckland毕业证书)新西兰奥克兰大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(TheAuckland毕业证书)新西兰奥克兰大学毕业证如何办理
F La
 
一比一原版(QUT毕业证书)昆士兰科技大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(QUT毕业证书)昆士兰科技大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(QUT毕业证书)昆士兰科技大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(QUT毕业证书)昆士兰科技大学毕业证如何办理
Airst S
 
一比一原版(KPU毕业证书)加拿大昆特兰理工大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(KPU毕业证书)加拿大昆特兰理工大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(KPU毕业证书)加拿大昆特兰理工大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(KPU毕业证书)加拿大昆特兰理工大学毕业证如何办理
e9733fc35af6
 
一比一原版埃克塞特大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版埃克塞特大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版埃克塞特大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版埃克塞特大学毕业证如何办理
Airst S
 

Último (20)

Sangyun Lee, Duplicate Powers in the Criminal Referral Process and the Overla...
Sangyun Lee, Duplicate Powers in the Criminal Referral Process and the Overla...Sangyun Lee, Duplicate Powers in the Criminal Referral Process and the Overla...
Sangyun Lee, Duplicate Powers in the Criminal Referral Process and the Overla...
 
Interpretation of statute topics for project
Interpretation of statute topics for projectInterpretation of statute topics for project
Interpretation of statute topics for project
 
一比一原版(USC毕业证书)南加州大学毕业证学位证书
一比一原版(USC毕业证书)南加州大学毕业证学位证书一比一原版(USC毕业证书)南加州大学毕业证学位证书
一比一原版(USC毕业证书)南加州大学毕业证学位证书
 
Performance of contract-1 law presentation
Performance of contract-1 law presentationPerformance of contract-1 law presentation
Performance of contract-1 law presentation
 
一比一原版(Griffith毕业证书)格里菲斯大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(Griffith毕业证书)格里菲斯大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(Griffith毕业证书)格里菲斯大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(Griffith毕业证书)格里菲斯大学毕业证如何办理
 
一比一原版(CQU毕业证书)中央昆士兰大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(CQU毕业证书)中央昆士兰大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(CQU毕业证书)中央昆士兰大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(CQU毕业证书)中央昆士兰大学毕业证如何办理
 
一比一原版(Warwick毕业证书)华威大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(Warwick毕业证书)华威大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(Warwick毕业证书)华威大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(Warwick毕业证书)华威大学毕业证如何办理
 
一比一原版(IC毕业证书)帝国理工学院毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(IC毕业证书)帝国理工学院毕业证如何办理一比一原版(IC毕业证书)帝国理工学院毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(IC毕业证书)帝国理工学院毕业证如何办理
 
Relationship Between International Law and Municipal Law MIR.pdf
Relationship Between International Law and Municipal Law MIR.pdfRelationship Between International Law and Municipal Law MIR.pdf
Relationship Between International Law and Municipal Law MIR.pdf
 
一比一原版(ECU毕业证书)埃迪斯科文大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(ECU毕业证书)埃迪斯科文大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(ECU毕业证书)埃迪斯科文大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(ECU毕业证书)埃迪斯科文大学毕业证如何办理
 
一比一原版(Monash毕业证书)澳洲莫纳什大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(Monash毕业证书)澳洲莫纳什大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(Monash毕业证书)澳洲莫纳什大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(Monash毕业证书)澳洲莫纳什大学毕业证如何办理
 
一比一原版(TheAuckland毕业证书)新西兰奥克兰大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(TheAuckland毕业证书)新西兰奥克兰大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(TheAuckland毕业证书)新西兰奥克兰大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(TheAuckland毕业证书)新西兰奥克兰大学毕业证如何办理
 
Navigating Employment Law - Term Project.pptx
Navigating Employment Law - Term Project.pptxNavigating Employment Law - Term Project.pptx
Navigating Employment Law - Term Project.pptx
 
Career As Legal Reporters for Law Students
Career As Legal Reporters for Law StudentsCareer As Legal Reporters for Law Students
Career As Legal Reporters for Law Students
 
A SHORT HISTORY OF LIBERTY'S PROGREE THROUGH HE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
A SHORT HISTORY OF LIBERTY'S PROGREE THROUGH HE EIGHTEENTH CENTURYA SHORT HISTORY OF LIBERTY'S PROGREE THROUGH HE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
A SHORT HISTORY OF LIBERTY'S PROGREE THROUGH HE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
 
一比一原版(QUT毕业证书)昆士兰科技大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(QUT毕业证书)昆士兰科技大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(QUT毕业证书)昆士兰科技大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(QUT毕业证书)昆士兰科技大学毕业证如何办理
 
一比一原版(KPU毕业证书)加拿大昆特兰理工大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(KPU毕业证书)加拿大昆特兰理工大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(KPU毕业证书)加拿大昆特兰理工大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(KPU毕业证书)加拿大昆特兰理工大学毕业证如何办理
 
一比一原版埃克塞特大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版埃克塞特大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版埃克塞特大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版埃克塞特大学毕业证如何办理
 
Who is Spencer McDaniel? And Does He Actually Exist?
Who is Spencer McDaniel? And Does He Actually Exist?Who is Spencer McDaniel? And Does He Actually Exist?
Who is Spencer McDaniel? And Does He Actually Exist?
 
It’s Not Easy Being Green: Ethical Pitfalls for Bankruptcy Novices
It’s Not Easy Being Green: Ethical Pitfalls for Bankruptcy NovicesIt’s Not Easy Being Green: Ethical Pitfalls for Bankruptcy Novices
It’s Not Easy Being Green: Ethical Pitfalls for Bankruptcy Novices
 

Business Law - Study of cases from High Court and Supreme Court

  • 1. Study of cases from High Court and Supreme Court
  • 2. Case 1 Birdichand Sukhraj Marwadi Vs. Harakchand Jagraj Marwadi I. Parties of the case Petitioner: Birdichand Sukhraj Marwadi Vs. Respondent: Harakchand Jagraj Marwadi Date of Judgment- 15/12/1939 II. Court and Region High Court of Nagpur III. Act Indian Partnership Act 1932, Contract Act 1872 IV. Issue related to the Case Whether an isolated adventure for the purchase and sale of cotton entered into by two persons who agree to share the profits or the losses makes them partners within the meaning of the Partnership Act. V. Facts of the Case The plaintiff purchased cartloads of cotton from a third party and the defendant held half the share in the profit or the loss arising out of the said transaction. Since the price began to fall, the defendant told the plaintiff’s to sell it. The plaintiff did so and in order to recover the extra loss caused due to selling off the defendant’s share of the cotton, the plaintiff sued the defendant for his half share in the loss. The defendant argued that the said transaction, even if accepted as constituting
  • 3. partnership, can’t be the basis for the plaintiff’s claim as the firm was not registered. Section 69 (1) applicable here. VI. Judgement given for the case. Trial Court: The transaction was a partnership transaction and as per s.69 the suit could not lie. High Court i. (Law) The court stated that there is no doubt that an “isolated adventure” could constitute a partnership. However, a basic requirement that must be fulfilled with regards to this is that the adventure should constitute a business and this business should be on the joint account. Partnership rests on agreement and so long as the agreement contemplates an outgoing and an incoming on the joint account in respect of a business, the partnership is complete and all subsequent rights and liabilities are governed by laws which relate to partnership. There is a difference between cases of purchase of property for a joint user from those in which it is purchased for a joint endeavour. ii. Since, there could be neither profit nor loss until the cotton was resold the transaction was not merely to purchase cotton for the purpose of sharing it between them but to resell it. The transaction was on their joint account. Both the parties were to share the profit or bear the loss half and half. That meant that neither could sell his half of the cotton as an independent transaction in which he alone was interested without the consent of the other. Whatever was done had to be done on the joint account. Therefore it was a clear case of partnership and the suit could not lie because of Section 69(1), Partnership Act.
  • 4. Case 2 Deputy Commissioner of Sales-Tax Vs. Messrs k. Kelukutty I. Parties of the case Petitioner: Deputy Commissioner of Sales-Tax, (law) Board of Revenue Vs. Respondent: Messrs k. Kelukutty Date of Judgment- 03/05/1985 II. Court and Region Kerala High Court and Kerala Supreme Court III. Act Indian Partnership Act 1932 IV. Issue related to the Case i. Whether when the partners constituting a partnership firm carrying on one business constitute thereafter another partnership firm carrying on a separate and distinct business are there two distinct partnership firms in whose hand the turnover of the two businesses falls to be respectively assessed or is there in law only a single partnership firm liable to assessment on the turnover of both businesses? ii. Which law is more apt in the present situation to be applied; partnership law or Tax law? V. Facts of the Case The respondent is a partnership firm dealing in timber. When the firm’s Sales Tax Officer was assessing the firm’s turnover, he discovered that the partners of the firm owned a saw mill, and the partners in that saw mill were the same as in the respondent firm. It was also discovered that the respondent had not included the
  • 5. turnover of the saw mill in their own turnover. The sales officer took the view that since both firms had identical partners they were effectively one firm and was to be treated as such and therefore the turnover of the sale of sawdust had to be included in the earlier assessment made on the respondent firm. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax upheld the assessment order. VI. Judgement given for the case. Kerala High Court: The two firms were separate firms in the eyes of law. Kerala Supreme Court: i. When an assessing officer agrees to assess the turnover of a firm, he must make sure that the venture is a firm. This can be done by applying the necessary partnership law modifying it according to the tax law applicable. The Kerala General Sales-Tax Act contains no provision regarding this only partnership law should be applied.[w.r.t issue ii] ii. It is the partnership agreement that forms a partnership relationship, thus making it a partnership’s basis. Partnership agreement may define different partnership relations and thereby define different firms. The partners may be different and yet the nature of the business may be the same, the business may be different and yet the partners may be same. An agreement between the partners to carry on a business and share its profits may be followed by a separate agreement between the same partners to carry on another business and share the profits therein. The intention may be to constitute two separate partnerships and therefore two distinct firms. Each partnership is a distinct relationship. It will all depend on the intention of the partners. [w.r.t Issue i] They did not conclude as to the question whether there was one firm or two because of lack of relevant evidence and asked Kerala General Sales-Tax authorities to find it. They referred the case to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, sales Tax for taking up the appeal and resolved it in the light of their findings.
  • 6. Case 3 Deputy Commissioner of Sales-Tax Vs. Messrs k. Kelukutty I. Parties of the case Petitioner: Khushal Khemgar Shah & Ors. Vs. Respondent: Khorshed Banu Dadiba Boatwalla & Anr. Date of Judgment- 15/01/1960 II. Court and Region High Court and Supreme Court III. Act Indian Partnership Act 1932 IV. Issue related to the Case Whether the good-will of a firm is an asset or not? V. Facts of the Case D, who was one of eight partners in a firm, died on February 20, 1957. By virtue of a provision in the partnership deed, the business of the firm was continued by the surviving partners. The respondents, being the widow and son of D commenced an action for an account of the partnership between D and the surviving partners, claiming for the payment of the amount determined to be due to D at the time of his death. VI. Judgement given for the case High Court (single judge): Ordered a decree for the account till Feb 20, 1957.
  • 7. Division Bench: On appeal modified the decree holding that the respondents were entitled only to interest at 6 % p.a. on the amount of D’s share in the assets of the partnership, including good-will. Supreme Court: Contention (Appellants): Respondents as legal representatives of D were not entitled to a share in the value of the good- will of the firm because good-will may be taken into account only when there is a dissolution and not otherwise and furthermore, because D had agreed that his interest in the good-will would cease after his death and the business shall be continued by the surviving, partners. A.N. Grover, J.C. Shah and K.S.Hegde, JJ. (Dismissed the appeal) i. The good-will of a firm is an asset of the firm. In case of partnership business continued by the surviving partners after the death of a partner, the Court can award to the legal representatives of the deceased partner a share in the goodwill in the absence of an express stipulation to the contrary. ii. In interpreting the deed of partnership, the Court will insist upon some indication that the right to a share in the assets is, by virtue of the agreement that the surviving partners are entitled to carry on the business on the death of the partner, to be extinguished. In the absence of a provision, the normal rule that the share of a partner in the assets devolves upon his legal representatives will apply to the good-will as well as to other assets. iii. There is no indication in s. 55 of the Partnership Act that goodwill may be taken into account only when there is a general dissolution of the firm and not when the representatives of a partner claim his share in the firm, which by express stipulations is to continue notwithstanding the death of a partner. Nor do ss. 39, 42 and 46 of the Act support such a contention.
  • 8. Bibliography Birdichand And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court May 9, 1957). Wanchoo. (n.d.). Birdichand And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan. Retrieved from Indian Kanoon: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1123952/?type=print Singhvi, G. (n.d.). V.N.Shrikhande vs Anita Sena Fernandes. Retrieved from Indian Kanoon: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1421311/ C, S. (n.d.). Khushal Khemgar Shah & Ors vs Khorshed Banu Dadiba Boatwalla. Retrieved from Indian Kanoon: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1581571/ Stone, C. J. (n.d.). Birdichand Sukhraj Marwadi Vs. Harakchand Jagraj Marwadi. Retrieved from Casemine: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e2f64a932619d903cde9