<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1935 (12) TMI 15 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96700</link>
    <description>A sub-partner is not counted as a member of the principal firm for the statutory bar against an unregistered association exceeding the permitted number, because a sub-partner shares only in a partner&#039;s profits and does not become a partner in the original firm. An oral lease arrangement may still be enforceable as an agreement for a lease if the terms are sufficiently definite, even without writing or registration, and limitation runs from enforceability when title is acquired. The note also states that a suit is incompetent where the same person would have to appear both as plaintiff and defendant, and Order 30 rule 9 does not alter that substantive rule.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Dec 1935 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:36:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133758" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1935 (12) TMI 15 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96700</link>
      <description>A sub-partner is not counted as a member of the principal firm for the statutory bar against an unregistered association exceeding the permitted number, because a sub-partner shares only in a partner&#039;s profits and does not become a partner in the original firm. An oral lease arrangement may still be enforceable as an agreement for a lease if the terms are sufficiently definite, even without writing or registration, and limitation runs from enforceability when title is acquired. The note also states that a suit is incompetent where the same person would have to appear both as plaintiff and defendant, and Order 30 rule 9 does not alter that substantive rule.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Dec 1935 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96700</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>