9911796707
TMI Blog1935 (6) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Banka Mal. On 29th March 1932, a suit was instituted by the firm Tirath Ram-Ram Chand against Ram Singh, Banka Mal, Gobind Ram and one Makhan Singh (against whom the claim was dropped during the course of the proceedings) for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts , in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Rawalpindi. The suit was contested by the defendants other than Makhan Singh on numerous grounds of which it is only necessary, for the purposes of this judgment, to mention only one, namely, that the suit as, framed could not proceed because a firm, as such, could not be a partner in a firm and therefore could not sue for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. The Subordinate Judge overruled t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asmuch as all the members of the, firm had not been impleaded. It was found as a fact that Johar Mull and Man Mull were not a firm but that Johar Mull and Man Mull had been sufficiently described in the plaint and were parties to the suit. In the course of his judgment Page, J., remarked that: A firm as such cannot be a member of a partnership-it is merely a collective name for the individuals who are members of the partnership. It is neither a legal entity nor a person. A firm name in truth is merely a description of the individuals who compose the firm. 3. These observations were quoted with approval by a Division Bench of the Calcutta Court in Brojo Lal v. Budh Nath 1928 Cal 148. That was not a partnership suit, but one brought in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heo Narain v. Commissioner of Income tax 1935 Lah 896. 4. In view of these pronouncements it. must be held to be settled law that a firm is not a legal entity or a person capable of becoming, as a firm, a partner in another firm. There is at the same time equally good authority for holding] that once a declaration of partners has been made under Order 30, Rule 2, Civil P. C, a suit for dissolution can proceed although the plaintiffs had, in the first instance, described themselves as a firm. It is not disputed that the persons declared were partners at the time the cause of action accrued and that in partnership with each other they claimed a share in the firm Ram Chand-Tirath Ram. They could, therefore , come forward together under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
