Jagdish Chander Vs Ramesh Chander &Ors [(2007) 5 SCC 719

If during the continuance of the partnership or at any time afterwards any dispute touching the partnership arises between the partners, the same shall be mutually decided by the partners or shall be referred for arbitration if the parties so determine.

Partnership Commissioner of Income Tax. West Bengal, Calcutta. v. Juggilal Kamalapat, AIR 1967 (SC) 401 The Deed of Relinquishment, in this case, was in respect of the individual interest of the three Singhania Brothers in the assets of the partnership firm in favour of the Kamala Town Trust, and consequently, did not require registration, even though the assets of the partnership firm included immovable property, and was valid without registration. As a result of this deed, all the assets of the partnership vested in the new partners of the firm. In the alternative, we think that, even if it had been accepted that this deed of relinquishment required registration, that would not lead to the conclusion that the partnership seeking registration was not valid and had not come into existence in law. The deed of relinquishment could, at best. be held to he invalid insofar as it affected the immovable properties included in the assets of the firm; but to the extent that it purported to transfer movable assets of the firm, the document would remain valid. The deed could clearly be divided into two separate parts, one relating to immovable properties, and the other to movable assets; and the part of the deed dealing with movable assets could not be held invalid for want of registration. A deed of relinquishment is in the nature of a deed of gift, where the various properties dealt with are always separable, and the invalidity of the deed of gift in respect of one item cannot affect its validity in respect of another. This view was expressed by the Madras High Court in Perumal Ammal v. Perumal Naicker, ILR 44 Mad 196. A deed of relinquishment, or a deed of gift, differs from a deed of partition in which it is not possible to hold that the partition is valid in respect of some properties and not in respect of others, because rights of persons being partitioned are adjusted with reference to the properties subject to partition as a whole.

Partnership Ajudhia Pershad Ram Pershad v. Sham Sundar, ILR (1947) as Lah 417 ), the interest in a partnership of a partner is to be regarded as movable property when it is sought to be dealt with under O. 21 R. 49, Civil Procedure Code, notwithstanding that at the time when it is charged or sold, the partnership assets include immovable property.

Partnership Chandrakant Manilal Shah v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, AIR 1992 (SC) it cannot be said that when a coparcener enters into a partnership with the karta of a HUE and contributes only his skill and labour, no contribution of any separate asset belonging to such partner is made to meet the requirement of a valid partnership. Reverting to the facts of the instant case it is noteworthy that it is not the case of the Revenue that the partnership between Chandrakant Manilal Shah as karta of HUE and Naresh Chandrakant was fictitious or invalid on any other ground.

Partnership In Commr. of Income-tax V. Sir Hukumchand Mannalal and Co., (1970) 78 ITR 18 "The Indian Contract Act imposes no disability upon members of a Hindu undivided family in the matter of entering into a contract inter se or with a stranger. A member of a Hindu undivided family has the same liberty of contract as any other individual : it is restricted only in the manner and to the extent provided by the Indian Contract Act. Partnership is under Section 4 of the Partnership Act the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all : if such a relation exists, it will not be invalid merely because two or more of the persons who have so agreed are members of a Hindu undivided family."

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."

Partnership M.V. Karunakaran v. Krishan, AIR 2007 (SC) 1501 The partners as pre-existing co-owners had a definite share of the property. They merely applied their own property for running a business in partnership. On dissolution of the partnership, their right in the property revived. Using of a premises for business purpose would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the premises belonged to the partnership firm.

Partnership Addanki Narayanappa and another v. Bhaskara Krishnappa (dead) and thereafter his heirs and others [AIR 1966 SC 1300], this Court opined : "...The whole concept of partnership is to embark upon a joint venture and for that purchase to bring in as capital money or even property including immovable property. Once that is done whatever is brought in would cease to be the exclusive property of the person who brought it in. it would be the trading asset of the partnership in which all the partners would have interest in proportion to their share in the joint venture of the business of partnership. The person who brought it in would, therefore, not be able to claim or exercise any exclusive right over any property which he has brought in, much less over any other partnership property. He would not be able to exercise his right even to the extent of his share in the business of the partnership. As already stated his right during the subsistence of the partnership is to get his share of profits from time to time as maybe agreed upon among the partners and after the dissolution of the partnership or with his retirement from partnership of the value of his share in the net partnership assets as on the date of solution or retirement after a deduction of liabilities and prior charges..."

Parnership V.H. Patel & Company v. Hirubhai Himabhai Patel, 2000(2) RCR (Civil) 735 (SC) While mere disagreement or quarrel arising from impropriety of partners is not sufficient ground for dissolution, interference should not be refused where it is shown to the satisfaction of the adjudicating authority that the conduct of a partner has been such that it is not reasonably practicable for other partners to carry on the business in partnership. For instance, dissolution should be ordered if it is shown that the conduct of a partner has resulted in destruction of mutual trust or confidence which is the very basis for proper conduct of partnership.