1932 (2) TMI 28

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ument is as follows : Mr. Bose relies, first of all, on Section 239, Contract Act. Secondly, he relies upon certain cases and in particular upon a judgment of Page, J., in Seodoyal Khemka v. Joharmull Man-mull (1). The argument based on the Contract Act is as follows : that partnership is defined as a relationship between persons, that a firm is not a legal person, and that therefore a partnership which purports to exist between a firm and an individual is unlawful according to Indian law. The fallacy in that argument is as follows: Conceding that a firm is not a legal person--for that no authority is required--a person within the meaning of Section 239 may yet be a combination of persons. Person is not defined in the Contract Act, and t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... itation, and that therefore all parties necessary for a partnership suit were not present. Page, J., allowed the defendants to raise this point as a matter of fact, i. a., whether Johurmull Manmull was a firm. If it was a firm it is not suggested that there would have been any difficulty. But it was found on the facts that Johurmull Manmull was not a firm. Page, J., pointed out that, although the two persons were parties in the firm name only, a firm being only an association of individuals they were in fact and substantially parties as individuals. It was in that connexion that he used the phrase a firm as such cannot be a member of a partnership and in no other connexion. I am therefore of opinion that the case properly read is against .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ution of partnership the individuals composing the firm, in the position of Kedar Bux Omar Hyat, can sue in the firm name. It may however be argued that if a suit is brought in the firm name or one of the parties or some of the parties are collected together under the firm name, all the individual members of the partnership of which dissolution is sought are not on the record. I myself think that Seodoyal Khemka v. Johurmull Man-mull AIR1924Cal74 is an authority against that contention, but I express no formal opinion on the matter. (Mr. Basu further contended that while taking partnership accounts, profits made by plaintiff with the assets of the dissolved firm, after date of its dissolution should be taken into account on which his Lordsh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X