https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311356 A partnership label did not bar the suit because the document, read as a whole, showed no true sharing of profits and the later deed itself stated the partnership was never carried into effect. Any promise made in return for not pressing a criminal complaint or forgery objection was void for unlawful consideration and could not bind the plaintiff. The hypothecation was not a fraudulent transfer to delay or defeat creditors, since the advances were real and the transaction was only a permissible preference of one creditor. The deed also operated in substance as an assignment of actionable claims, giving the plaintiff rights superior to the defendants' attachment. en-us Sun, 08 Sep 1940 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Dec 2023 17:39:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311356 A partnership label did not bar the suit because the document, read as a whole, showed no true sharing of profits and the later deed itself stated the partnership was never carried into effect. Any promise made in return for not pressing a criminal complaint or forgery objection was void for unlawful consideration and could not bind the plaintiff. The hypothecation was not a fraudulent transfer to delay or defeat creditors, since the advances were real and the transaction was only a permissible preference of one creditor. The deed also operated in substance as an assignment of actionable claims, giving the plaintiff rights superior to the defendants' attachment. Case-Laws Indian Laws Sun, 08 Sep 1940 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311356