Mr. Iyer placed considerable reliance as the High Court has also done, on 1the earlier decision of the Bonibay High Court in Umarbhai Chandbhai v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City('). That again, in our opinion, was a case of an extreme nature where, under a partnership deed, between the father and his two sons, the fonner had a right to exclude either or born B his sons from the managoment of the firm, wholly or in part. There was also a provision 1to the effect that the father was entitled to en1rust the management to any othe person and also detennine what quantum of profits should be distributed and what is to be do® regarding the remaining profits. There wer>~ fuNher provisions !Q the eifect that1 the father could terminate the part- · c nership ancj on such tennination, the share of the ~rtner was to revert to the father. The Bombay High Court, having due regard to the clauses, rderred to above, as well as other clauses of the partnership -de.ed, held that the document offended against the two 'principles which were essential to constitute a partnership, namely, agreement to share the profits and losses and the business D being carried on by all or any of them for all of them. The learned Judges held that there was no agreement to share the profits and losses of the busin·ss and even the business carried on by the father was not, on behalf of alf the partners. In such circumstances, it was held, tllat the arrangeri1ent evidenced by the deed cannot be considered in law to be a partnerhip. In our opinion, reliance placed upon this decision by the High Court as E well as by Mt. Iyer is mis-placed. In fact, from a perusal of the claus•~s in the document .which the Bombay High Court had to consider, it is clear that the business continued to be the proprietary concern of one single individual namely, the father. Excepting that ihe two sons were styled as partners in the document, the essen1ial requisites for constituting the relationship F of partners inter se between the father and the two sons were totally absent. The clause in the case before us are totally different. We have already indic<rted that there is an agre.~ment for sharing the profits and losses and that even though vast powers of con~rol and lllanagement have bee!) given to K. D. Karnath, the manag1.ng partner, the business was being carried c1n by the said G managmg partner, on behalf of all the partners. These conditions fully satisfy the requir>~ments of the definition of "partnership" under s. 4 of the Partnership Act.
