<?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>1993 (3) TMI 387 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300106</link>
    <description>An order that substantially concluded objections in final decree proceedings and only left clerical calculation was treated as final in character and therefore appealable; the preliminary objection to maintainability failed. In partnership accounting, a managing partner owes a fiduciary duty to render true accounts and to justify firm transactions. Where he failed to prove genuine settlement, could not substantiate alleged borrowings or withdrawals, and produced unreliable books, the court was justified in rejecting the accounts and tracing partnership funds into properties purchased in his name and through nominees. The decree directing accounting and distribution of the partnership assets was left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2022 12:55:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=666927" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (3) TMI 387 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300106</link>
      <description>An order that substantially concluded objections in final decree proceedings and only left clerical calculation was treated as final in character and therefore appealable; the preliminary objection to maintainability failed. In partnership accounting, a managing partner owes a fiduciary duty to render true accounts and to justify firm transactions. Where he failed to prove genuine settlement, could not substantiate alleged borrowings or withdrawals, and produced unreliable books, the court was justified in rejecting the accounts and tracing partnership funds into properties purchased in his name and through nominees. The decree directing accounting and distribution of the partnership assets was left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300106</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>