Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: dissolution of firm partnership Page 1 of about 12,752 results (0.039 seconds)

May 29 2009 (HC)

Prakash Chand Vs. Bhanwar Lal and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : RLW2009(4)Raj3419

..... of the judgment of this court delivered in the case of dinesh jangid v. laxmi kant jangid 2007 (2) wlc (raj.) 703, it was submitted that, after dissolution of firm, partnership still subsists for purpose of completing pending transactions, winding up, settlement of accounts and other rights and obligations inter se parties.2. with this assumption that the ..... firm has not been dissolved, the petitioner requested respondent-bhanwar lal to execute a dissolution deed in accordance with law and to finalize the accounts but on one pretext or the other, ..... by treating his son om prakash as partner. according to the petitioner, mere separation/stoppage of business does not amount to dissolution and further right to sue for dissolution of a continuing firm exists so long as the partnership continues, for this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of haramohan poddar and ..... limitation act, 1963, the suit for accounts and share of profit of a dissolved partnership firm can be filed within a period of three years from the date of dissolution of the firm. the firm stands dissolved on 16.4.1978 with the retirement of the petitioner from the partnership firm and, therefore, the limitation started from that date. once the limitation starts to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 1998 (HC)

Mohinder Nath and ors. Vs. Sh. Narender Nath and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1998IIIAD(Delhi)1; 72(1998)DLT785; 1998(45)DRJ296; 1998RLR333

..... chandra hazra, : air1976cal459 it was held that where a partner waited for about three years after he had given notice of dissolution of the firm and allowed the other partners to carry on the partnership business by constitution of a new firm, the prayer for appointment of a receiver was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. in t.krishnaswamy ..... at will, were contrary to the record. the second contention raised by mr.v.p.singh is that even assuming the partnership to be at will, it is not in every suit for dissolution of the firm that a receiver has to be appointed as a matter of course but the court had to give a finding that the circumstances warranted the appointment ..... of one of the partners. the contention of the plaintiff in that case was that the partnership was at will and as he had given notice of dissolution of partnership, he was entitled to have the firm dissolved. interpreting the terms of the partnership, the court held that the partners having agreed that the partnership shall continue notwithstanding that one partner goes out or dies, the ..... this court has to see as to what was the agreement between them as contained in the partnership deed and whether it was a case of retirement of the plaintiff from the firm or the plaintiff could ask for dissolution of the firm even when other three partners want to continue the firm and pay to the plaintiff his share on his retirement from the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 2002 (HC)

K. Suryanarayana and anr. Vs. P. Lakshmipathi Raju and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR2002AP340

..... in o.s.no.551 of 1980 on the file of the principal district munsif court, bapatla. the suit was filed by the plaintiff for dissolution of partnership and settlement of accounts of the 1st defendant-firm and to pass a decree in his favour for such amount as he may become entitled to with interest against such defendants who become liable to ..... on the file of the subordinate court, bapatla.12. when the matter came up for hearing before the appellate court, the appellate court held that mere severance of relation of partnership does not amount to dissolution of the firm, that if ex.b.47-contract of sale dated 25-7-1979 is a letter of consent or agreement for the ..... as the running of the business of the mill is the essential condition for the dissolution of the partnership, that since the firm was already dissolved when the same was sold to defendants 18 and 19, it is not necessary to pass any order for dissolution of the firm and there is no necessity for the 2nd defendant to render any accounts to the plaintiff ..... of accounts. therefore it cannot be inferred that closing of the business and selling of the mill to the third parties does not amount to dissolution of the partnership. the appellate court further observed as follows:. so, the lower court considered that when the firm was tentatively dissolved, the other points will not come to an end, but when the point that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 29 1995 (HC)

Bhaktimala Beedi Factory Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : [1996]219ITR6(AP)

..... question before the supreme court was about the admissibility of a relinquishment deed executed by some of the members of the partnership firm in proof of dissolution of the partnership firm as well as settlement of accounts whereunder both movable and immovable properties were conveyed and hence whether the said document of ..... in the other case and moreover, the question of registration does not arise in this case as no part of the immovable property of the partnership firm is involved in the transfer. it may be pointed out that in a later case, reported in cit vs . juggilal kamlapat : [1967] ..... partnership-firm without reference to the firm since the property which is brought in by the partners into the partnership firm or acquired later, becomes the property of the firm and the right of a partner is only a share in the profits or a share in the value of assets on dissolution. ..... the ito further observed that by transferring the asset of the firm to a ..... trust in which all the partners are not beneficiaries, an attempt to avoid payment of tax was evident. the cit(a) as well as the tribunal took the same view and further observed that the goodwill cannot be evaluated in monetary terms so long as the partnership firm .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 09 2007 (TRI)

Asstt. Cit Vs. Vijay Talkies

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

..... supra) and n. khadervali saheb v. n. guru sahib (2003) 261 itr l for the proposition that a partnership firm is not an independent legal entity and its partners are the real owners of the assets of the partnership firm and that on dissolution of a partnership firm, the allotment of assets to individual partner is not a case of transfer of any assets of the ..... firm because the assets which hereinbefore belonged to all the partners jointly, will after dissolution of the firm stand allotted to the partners individually.thus there is no ..... n. khadevali saheb's case (supra) for the proposition that a partnership firm is not an independent entity from its partners and partners are the real owners of assets of the firm and therefore on the dissolution of the firm, the assets which heretofore belonged to the partners jointly, will after dissolution belong to the partners individually. thus there is no transfer or of ..... (i) whether the distribution of assets on the dissolution of the firm would amount to transfer? (ii) whether the capital gains is taxable in the hands of the firm which is already dissolved and is not in existence. (iii) as, in a partnership firm, partners are the joint owners of the assets, whether the partnership firm is taxable? (v) whether the distribution of cash .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 07 2015 (HC)

Zoeb Zainuddin Mithaiwala Vs. Ibrahim Mohammed Hussain and Anr.

Court : Kolkata

..... any notice to each other expressing any intention of dissolution of the partnership firm. the plaintiff is one of the surviving partners of the existing partnership firm. with the death of his father, the existing partnership firm could not have been reconstituted by inducting the original defendant no.2 or by any other ..... the plaintiff ipso facto did not dissolve the partnership firm. the plaintiff did not issue any notice for termination of the partnership firm. his client also did not receive any intimation from any of the other existing partners of the partnership firm as to the dissolution of such partnership firm. consequently he submits that, the partnership firm was not validly dissolved and that his ..... october 18, 2000 or on any date subsequent thereto, the surviving partners to the partnership business expressed their intention to dissolve the partnership firm and in fact dissolved the same and that the plaintiff had accepted such dissolution. in absence of dissolution of such partnership firm the question arise as to the distribution of the capital account of the deceased ..... the mere withdrawl of the capital amount is required to establish the dissolution of an existing partnership firm. a partner is entitled to withdraw money from the partnership firm. in fact exhibit a contemplates a situation where the partners are entitled to salary out of the partnership firm. in the instant case, none of the surviving partners have issued .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 09 1996 (HC)

Rakesh Khanna Vs. Vishwanath Khanna and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 62(1996)DLT131

..... aforementioned clause will make it clear that parties agreed that have absolute faith and trust shall be final and binding. mode and manner of partition of the partnership firms could be either by dissolution of the partnership firms and /or reconstitution of the same and/or allocation of the various assets and liabilities. similarly, as regards the companies, the mode and manner of partition ..... son of sim mohan lal kapur: (a)the mode and manner of partition of all the properties and business mentioned in schedule 'a', i.e. dissolution of the partnership firm and/ or 're-construction' of the said firms and/or allocation of the various assets and liabilities of the same in the manner provided hereinafter. (b) the mode and manner of partition of all ..... were being referred to the person 'in whom all the aforesaid parties have absolute faith and trust'. i need not go into the question whether the disputes as regards dissolution of partnership and/or winding up of the companies could or could not be referred to arbitration, in order to cull out the intention of the parties, since the stand of ..... have to be decided by the court. the dissolution of firm and more especially on just and equitable ground involves the exercise of judicial discretion by court, which cannot be delegated to the arbitrators but has to be exercised under statutory provisions of section 44 of the partnership act and as such the matter of dissolution of partnership cannot be referred to arbitration. the second .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 07 1935 (PC)

Motilal Chimanram Vs. Sarupchand Prithiraj

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1936)38BOMLR1058

..... one of the mutual rights and obligations of the partners in the winding up of the firm. it is therefore clear that though the dissolution of a firm causes a dissolution of the partnership between the partners, the partnership still subsists, but merely for the purpose of winding up its business and adjusting the rights of the partners inter se, and for this purpose the ..... dwarkadas bhimraj, the son of plaintiff no. 2. plaintiff no. 1 was the senior and principal partner of the firm of chimanram motilal until its dissolution. he said that the flour mills in question were first purchased in 1925 in partnership between his firm of chimanram motilal and basantlal gorakhram and hansraj kanji, and that the shares of those three partners were six annas ..... entered into about the same time. the sale of the mills was completed in june, 1929. prior to the dissolution of the suit partnership the firm of chimanram motilal was dissolved in or about june, 1927, and the disputes between the partners of that firm were referred to arbitration, but, it appears, have not yet been settled. on october 12, 1934, a decretal ..... transaction which is ' necessary' in the winding up. the winding up only can be proceeded with after dissolution, and no other business can be carried on in the name of the firm. as pointed out by halsbury, vol. xxii, para. 194 :-after dissolution, the partnership subsists merely for the purpose of completing pending transactions, winding up the business, and adjusting the rights of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 17 1990 (HC)

Sushil Kumar Gupta Vs. Anil Kumar Gupta and Others

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 43(1991)DLT241

..... provision is subject to the contract between the partners. where the contract between the partners contemplates expressly or impliedly that the death of a partner would not result in dissolution of the partnership firm, the said term in the contract is to be given effect to superseding the provision contained in s. 42(c). in the present case, it is clearly provided in ..... made. this case is based on different facts. it was the case of dissolution of partnership. obviously solved firm. it was observed the case of dissolution of partnership. obviously once partnership is dissolved, in terms of sec. 46 of the partnership act, the assets of the partnership have rights and liabilities should be determined into be sold by public auction and the money so realised is to be ..... it is almost a settled law that for making distribution of the assets between the partners of the dissolved firm or otherwise, the provisions of s. 48 must be followed. section 46 of the partnership act lays down that on the dissolution of a firm every partner or his representative is entitled as against all other partners or their representatives to have the property ..... if there is no agreement to the contrary, the death of a partner will result in the dissolution of firm but as already noticed above, in the present case, there is an agreement to the contrary between the partners recorded in the partnership deed itself that the partnership shall not stand dissolved on the death of a partner. at page 741, it is observed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 22 1964 (HC)

Daggumati Radhakrishnaiah Vs. Yedlapalli Govindu and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1966AP192

..... these circumstances, the learned district munsif lost sight of the fact that, under section 44 of the partnership act, plaintiffs who were strangers to the fourth defendant partnership could not lawfully ask for the relief of dissolution of the fourth defendant firm (partnership) and that unless it were shown positively mat they had such right under any provision of law, plaintiffs could not ..... lawfully be granted the relief of dissolution of the fourth defendant firm. in fact, no decision has been placed before ..... and recoverthe amount due to them. no question of a general account can arise. plaintiffs, who are not partners of the 4th defendant firm, are not entitled to ask for its dissolution and for taking of accounts of that partnership.' this is not the subject-mutter of issue no. 4 which has been decided by the learned district munsif. so, there is ..... recover the amount due to them. no question of a general account can arise. plaintiffs, who are not partners of the 4th defendant firm, are not entitled to ask for its dissolution and for taking of accounts of that partnership' 7. in this written statement, d. radha-krishnaiah also denied the contention made by the plaintiff in this matter which i have .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //