TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Partnership Capital Dispute Resolved: Plaintiff's Claim Upheld, Jurisdiction Challenge Rejected</h1> <h3>Firm Ram Sahay Mall Rameshwar Versus Bishwanath Prasad</h3> The court concluded that the amount of Rs. 41,500 was not advanced as a loan but was adjusted as the plaintiff's share capital in the partnership ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the amount of Rs. 41,500 was advanced as a loan or otherwise.2. Jurisdiction of the Patna Court.3. Liability of all defendants.4. Applicability of Section 4 of the Bihar Money-Lenders (Regulation of Transactions) Act, 1939.Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the amount of Rs. 41,500 was advanced as a loan or otherwise:The plaintiff's case was that Rs. 41,500 was advanced as a loan through hundis and bank drafts to the firm Ram Sahay Mall Rameshwar Dayal (Defendant No. 1), with compensation at 1% per month from the respective dates. However, the defendants contended that the amount was towards the plaintiff's share in the Ice Factory and grain business. The court noted that the plaintiff's pleadings and evidence were inconsistent. Initially, the plaintiff's plaint suggested that the amount was advanced for becoming a partner, and he actually became a partner with a four annas share in the Ice Factory after adjusting Rs. 25,000. The court concluded that the amount was not a loan but was adjusted as the plaintiff's share capital in the partnership undertakings. Thus, the plaintiff's case on the basis of a loan failed.2. Jurisdiction of the Patna Court:The defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the Patna Court, arguing that the cause of action arose at Konch, where the business was conducted and agreements executed. Although this plea was initially taken, it was given up during the hearing. The court referred to Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which precludes objections to the place of suing unless raised at the earliest opportunity and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. The court found no failure of justice and hence rejected the jurisdictional challenge.3. Liability of all defendants:The plaintiff claimed that defendants 2 to 7 were members of a joint Hindu family and proprietors of the firm, along with defendants 8 and 9. The defendants argued that only defendants 5 and 8 were proprietors. The court found the defendants' case improbable, noting that the firm bore the names of defendants 2 and 3, indicating their interest. The court concluded that all defendants were proprietors of the firm Ram Sahay Mall Rameshwar Dayal and thus liable for any account due to the plaintiff.4. Applicability of Section 4 of the Bihar Money-Lenders (Regulation of Transactions) Act, 1939:The plaintiff's registration certificate as a money-lender showed a maximum loan limit of Rs. 20,000. The court referred to a precedent (Parsuram Sahu v. Sant Saran Lall) which held that no decree could be passed beyond the maximum amount mentioned in the registration certificate. However, since the court found that the amount advanced was not a loan, it did not need to express an opinion on this point.Conclusion:The court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any amount as the suit was framed, and the suit was dismissed without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to sue for rendition of accounts. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the lower court were set aside, with costs awarded to the defendants throughout.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
