https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96626 For Section 4(2) of the Companies Act, 1913, a Hindu joint family was treated as one "person" where the members were bound only through a family arrangement and did not stand in direct contractual relation with outsiders. The definition of "person" in the General Clauses Act, 1897 was held not to control that provision. The analysis distinguished an actual partnership of individual members from a joint family structure in which the managing member contracts for the family and the other members are only sub-partners inter se. The practical effect was that the agreement could not be invalidated simply by counting all family members separately; the true contracting parties had to be identified. en-us Mon, 13 Nov 1933 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Mar 2012 19:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96626 For Section 4(2) of the Companies Act, 1913, a Hindu joint family was treated as one "person" where the members were bound only through a family arrangement and did not stand in direct contractual relation with outsiders. The definition of "person" in the General Clauses Act, 1897 was held not to control that provision. The analysis distinguished an actual partnership of individual members from a joint family structure in which the managing member contracts for the family and the other members are only sub-partners inter se. The practical effect was that the agreement could not be invalidated simply by counting all family members separately; the true contracting parties had to be identified. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 13 Nov 1933 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96626