A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India 1969 (2) SCC 262

the line between quasi-judicial orders and administrative orders had thinned.

Partnership I.P. Munavalli v. Commr. of Income-tax, Mysore, (1969) 74 ITR 529, it was held by the Mysore High Court, after referring to the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Lacchmandas, and of Supreme Court in the case of Bhagat Ram, :- "So it is clear that the Supreme Court did not dissent from the opinion expressed by the Privy Council that "in respect of their separate or divided property" the coparceners of a Hindujoint family, even though they had not become divided from one another and there had been no partition of the family properties, could become partners of a firm of which the Joint Hindu family represented by its karta is itself a partner. If a partner by putting into the partnership by way of his capital his separate property or the property which he obtained at a partition on division and thus can become a partner with the family represented by its karta, it is difficult to understand how such a partnership cannot come into being and why a coparcener who continues to remain a member of the coparcenary cannot become a working partner of a firm of which he and the family represented by its karta are the partners. In Lachhman Das's case the coparcener placed at the disposal of the firm as his capital his separate property, and in the case of a working partner he contributes his skill or labour or both as the case may be. If the partnership is permissible in one case, it would be difficult to assign any reason for reaching the conclusion that it is not permissible in the other."

Evidence-Sec 26 Nishi Kant Jha vs State of Bihar (AIR 1969 SC 422) as the evidence on the record disproves the exculpatory part of the respondent's statement in the trial court, it is clearly permissible to accept that part of the statement which accords with the evidence on the record, and to act upon it”.