1933 (11) TMI 16

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... minimum rate, to supply certain accounts to the trustees appointed under the agreement, and to pay a certain specified proportion of their earnings into a pool to be kept by the said trustees and divided between the ten factories in certain specified shares. The plaintiff firm of Govinda Vishnusa, which was appointed the trustees, has brought the suit out of which this appeal arises to compel the factories belonging to the firms of Badrinarayan Ramnath and Motilal Damodardas,defendants'8and 9, which were parties to the above agreement, but have refused to carry it out, to supply accounts and to pay such sums as may be found due according to the stipulations in the agreement. The other parties to the agreement, defendants 1 to 7, have abide .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Bench of the Madras High Court in Pannaji Devichand v. Senaji Kapurchand, whose decision was upheld by the Privy Council in Senaji Kapurchand v. Pannaji Devichand. A contrary view was taken by the Allahabad High Court in Moti Ram v. Muhammad Abdul Jalil, where the. definition in Clause (39), Section 3, General Clauses Act, was applied and it was held that an association of individuals known as a Hindu joint family was a "person" within the meaning of Section 4, Companies Act. The Allahabad High Court took the same view again in Mewa Ram v. Ram Gopal. The question whether a Hindu joint family is a "person" within the meaning of Section 4, Companies Act, was not before the Court either in the Akola Gin Combination v. North .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that the entire assets of the joint family might be available to the creditors of the firm make any difference. The position of the plaintiff in the present case cannot be higher than that of a sub-partner. The managing member of an undivided family though he has the power of representing the interests of the other members is not their agent in the strict sense of the term so as to clothe the other members of the family with all the rights of principals in respect of contracts entered into by their agent. His position is, as pointed by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Annamalai Chetty v. Murugesa Cheity, more analogous to that of a trustee." The case law on the point has been reviewed by a Bench of the Allahabad High Court in t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X