Partnership Act, 1932


Act [IX of 1932]

Section 6—

determining whether a person is or is not a partner regard shall be had to the
real relation between the parties, taking all the relevant facts together.

Musa vs Kabir Ahmed 41 DLR (AD) 151.


Section 14—

property—This section is in the nature of an inclusive definition not properly
defining the expression “the property of the firm”. But property,
rights and interests in property of four different kinds are included in its first
paragraph which is all partnership properties “subject to contract between
the partners.” Its second paragraph includes a fifth kind of property and
rights and interests in property if the same is acquired with money belonging
to the firm “unless the contrary intention appears”, introducing a
legal fiction which creates a rebuttable presumption. ‘The decision of the
question whether a disputed property is or is not a partnership property would
depend upon the intention of the partners. Evidence is admissible to show that
a contrary intention governed the transaction which may justifiably be gathered
from the purpose of acquisition of property and mode in which it has been dealt
with. These considerations are germane to the determination of contrary intention.

Alam Chowdhury vs Chaman Ara Begum 43 DLR (AD) 121.


Section 32(3)—

A retiring
partner under section 32(3) read with section 72 of Partnership Act continues
to be liable for any subsequent act of any other partner which would bind the
firm until the public notice as prescribed by section 72 is given.

Md Mahmudun
Nabi vs Mafizur Rahman Manju 42 DLR (AD) 120.


Section 42(c)—

partnership firm has been dissolved automatically by operation of law and
became non—existent with the death of its partners.

Pubali Bank
Ltd vs Sultana Oil Mills and Soap Factory and others 51DLR323.


Section 69—

unregistered firm will only suffer the consequences of non—registration under
section 69 of the Partnership Act.

Rahman Manju vs Mahmudun Nabi 40 DLR 451.


Section 69(2)—

When the
suit properties are not partnership properties the bar of this section against
instituting the suit in question is not attracted.

Alam Chowdhury vs Chaman Ara Begum 43 DLR (AD) 121.


Section 72—

The retirement
of a partner is not effective unless and until other partners agree to
discharge him of possible liability and a public notice is given under section
72. Thus the question remains again whether any pecuniary interest .subsists
for which the respondent continued. On consideration of the evidence adduced it
is found that the respondent was a party to a contract with the Upazila
Parishad and: his . pecuniary interest continued even after election as. he
withdrew some security money of the contract after the election.

(Md) vs Mafizur Rahman Manju 42 DLR (AD) 20.


Partnership Act, 1932


Act, 1932

(IX OF 1932)



view of the provision of section 42(c) of the Act, the defendant-respondent No.
1, the partnership firm has also been dissolved automatically by operation of
law and became non-existent with the death of its partners.

the appellant has brought the instant appeal against the dead persons as
defendant-respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and 6 and also against the dissolved and
non-existent defendant-respondent No. 1, and in that view of the matter, the
appeal is also not maintainable.

Pubali Bank
Ltd Vs MIs. Sultana Oil Mills and Soap Factory and others, 19 BLD(HCD)249

PLD 1966 (Karachi)55; 27 DLR (Dhaka) 200; PLD 1966 (Lahore)1; 27 DLR (Dhaka)
523; 7DLR 134; Pubali Bank Ltd. Vs. M/s. Santania Iron and Steel Industries and
another, Civil Petition For Leave To Appeal No. 644 of 1994 (unreported)—Cited.