<?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>1954 (9) TMI 38 - ANDHRA PARDESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285499</link>
    <description>Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act bars a suit only where the suing firm is unregistered and the partners suing are not shown in the Register of Firms. A partnership deed may also exclude dissolution on a partner&#039;s death, and retirement does not by itself dissolve the firm under the Act&#039;s scheme. Here, the deed extended the principal partners&#039; interest to their survivors, heirs, executors and administrators, and a later agreement merely recorded a change in constitution while continuing the same business under the same firm name. Non-notification under Section 63(1) did not defeat maintainability, so the suit was not barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Sep 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2020 17:49:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=600386" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1954 (9) TMI 38 - ANDHRA PARDESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285499</link>
      <description>Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act bars a suit only where the suing firm is unregistered and the partners suing are not shown in the Register of Firms. A partnership deed may also exclude dissolution on a partner&#039;s death, and retirement does not by itself dissolve the firm under the Act&#039;s scheme. Here, the deed extended the principal partners&#039; interest to their survivors, heirs, executors and administrators, and a later agreement merely recorded a change in constitution while continuing the same business under the same firm name. Non-notification under Section 63(1) did not defeat maintainability, so the suit was not barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Sep 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285499</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>