<?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>1917 (12) TMI 1 - Bombay High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290946</link>
    <description>A partnership dispute considered when dissolution may be sought despite contractual terms continuing the business, and whether the court&#039;s equitable power to dissolve is displaced by agreement. The text states that a partnership carrying on only at a loss may be dissolved at a partner&#039;s suit, and that Section 252 of the Indian Contract Act does not bar that remedy. It also treats contemporaneous correspondence as fixing the agreed &quot;average rate of expense&quot; at 1 rupee 7 annas per cubic foot for quarrying, dressing and hauling labour only, excluding royalty and depreciation. An increase under Clause 25 required strict proof of extraordinary circumstances, which were not shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 1917 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2020 11:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=625905" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1917 (12) TMI 1 - Bombay High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290946</link>
      <description>A partnership dispute considered when dissolution may be sought despite contractual terms continuing the business, and whether the court&#039;s equitable power to dissolve is displaced by agreement. The text states that a partnership carrying on only at a loss may be dissolved at a partner&#039;s suit, and that Section 252 of the Indian Contract Act does not bar that remedy. It also treats contemporaneous correspondence as fixing the agreed &quot;average rate of expense&quot; at 1 rupee 7 annas per cubic foot for quarrying, dressing and hauling labour only, excluding royalty and depreciation. An increase under Clause 25 required strict proof of extraordinary circumstances, which were not shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 1917 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290946</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>