Partnership Act - Law Dictionary Search Results
Account or Accompt
1925, s. 56 [formerly the Judicature Act 1873, s. 34(3)], all causes and matters for the taking of partnership or other accounts are assigned (subject to a power of transfer) to the Chancery Division of the High
Bank
are contained in the (English) Companies Act, 1929 relating to Banks. By s. 358, no company, association or partnership consisting of more than ten members shall be formed for the purpose of carrying on a banking business
Capital
merchant, banker, or trader adventures in any undertaking, or which he contributes to the common stock of a partnership. The expression 'capital' is not defined under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. It must, therefore, be understood
Keep your definitions linked to case research
Banker
Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), s. 2 (1)] Banker, shall extend and apply to all corporations, societies, partnerships and persons, and every individual person carrying on the business of banking, whether by issue of notes or
Gazette
Orders, Rules, and Regulations as are directed by Act of Parliament to be published therein; also dissolu-tions of partnership, and notices of proceedings in bankruptcy. There is also an Edinburgh Gazette. It is presumed that another Gazette
Industrial establishment
under s. 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 or a firm registered under s. 59 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 which is engaged in any industry, or in any trade, business or service. [Central Industrial Security Force
Embezzlement
from larceny in this, that in the former the property misappropriated is not at the time in the actual or legal possession of the owner, whilst in the latter it is. The distinctions between larceny and embezzle-ment
Act of a firm
or agent of the firm which gives rise to a right enforceable by or against the firm. [Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932), s. 2(a)]
Other person liable to pay
to pay under the Income Tax Act' and the liability cannot therefore be construed with reference to the Partnership Act or any other statute, Sahu Rajeshwar Nath v. ITO, AIR 1969 SC 667 (669): (1969) 1 SCR 999.
Surety bond
contract, such as dishonesty of the employee, see Phillips v. Foxall, (1872) LR 7 QB 666, and see Partnership Act, 1890, s. 18; also MERCANTILE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1856; GUARANTY.
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »
Try the research workspace - 7 days free