TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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>Privy Council rules on partnership agreement and liability in money-lending business case</h1> <h3>P.K.P.S. Pichappa Chettiar and Ors. Versus Chokalingam Pillai and Ors.</h3> The Privy Council partially allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's decision. It found that there was indeed a partnership between the parties in ... - Issues:1. Partnership agreement and nature of partnership between the parties.2. Dissolution of partnership and liability of legal representatives.3. Benefit received by the family of deceased partner from the partnership.Analysis:Issue 1: Partnership agreement and nature of partnershipThe case involved a dispute regarding the existence and nature of a partnership between the appellants and the respondents in a money-lending and banking business carried out under the style of P.K.P.S. in Colombo. The plaintiff alleged that the deceased uncle of the respondents, Virappa Pillai, was a partner in the business along with the appellants. The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a partnership at the time of the suit and that any previous partnership had dissolved in 1916. However, the Privy Council found sufficient evidence to conclude that Virappa was indeed a partner with a specific share in the business since May 1908.Issue 2: Dissolution of partnership and liability of legal representativesThe High Court had dismissed the plaintiff's suit based on the belief that the partnership had dissolved in 1916, rendering the claim barred by limitation. However, the Privy Council disagreed and held that Virappa remained a partner in the business until the institution of the suit in April 1924. Therefore, the legal representatives of Virappa were held liable, and a declaration was made regarding the extent of Virappa's partnership share with the appellants.Issue 3: Benefit received by the family of deceased partnerThe plaintiff argued that the family of the deceased partner benefited from the partnership and should be held liable to some extent. However, the Privy Council found the evidence of such benefit to be insufficient and inconclusive. As a result, the claim against the legal representatives of Virappa's family members was dismissed.In conclusion, the Privy Council allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the High Court's decree, and made declarations regarding the partnership agreement, dissolution, and liability of the parties involved. The costs of the proceedings were apportioned accordingly among the parties based on the findings of the Privy Council.
TaxTMI 
