Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Page 1 of about 35,864 results (0.076 seconds)

Oct 10 1951 (HC)

Dhulia-amalner Motor Transport Ltd. Vs. Raychand Rupsi Dharamsi and or ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : [1952]22CompCas306(Bom)

..... of the company, a third person altogether.19. mr. purshottam for the plaintiff has referred the court to section 37 of the indian partnership act, section 67 of the indian trusts act, certain observations at pages 444 and 448 of aggarwala's indian trusts act and decisions in ahmed musaji saleji v. hashim ebrahim saleji, and ramlal thakursidas v. lakhmichand muniram. in my opinion, however, ..... question whether the resolution passed at the meeting of august 24, 1941, could amount to a statutory notice within the meaning of section 43 of the indian partnership act. the next general meeting of the partnership firm was held on december 25, 1941, and the pertinent resolution was resolution no. 1 which stated that immediate steps should be taken for making a ..... done by the union and that the company was really the same entity as the union but under a different name. relying on section 37 of the indian partnership act mr. purshottam has contended that the majority section of the partnership firm are using the artificial creation of the company as their agent for doing the business with the property of the ..... mr. purshottam for the respondents who constitute a minority section in the partnership firm has strenuously contended that the partnership firm has not been dissolved but is still continuing, that the requisite procedure for the dissolution of a partnership as prescribed by section 40 and 43 of the indian partnership act was not followed, that the business which was done by the private .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 2005 (HC)

Shri Anant Purushottam Athavale Vs. Govind Purushottam Athavale and or ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR2005Bom301; 2005(3)ALLMR89; 2006(2)BomCR494; 2005(3)MhLj384

..... between the partners for the duration of their partnership, or for the determination of their partnership, the partnership is 'partnership at will'. . mr. godbole for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the supreme court ..... question, so far as this appeal is concerned, is, whether the partnership is at will as per clause 2 or whether clauses 11 and 12 are over-riding clause 2 of the partnership deed. my attention was drawn by mr. godbole in this regard to the indian partnership act, particularly section 7 which defines 'partnership at will' as under : where no provision is made by contract ..... lacs and, since the respondents neither giving accounts nor giving him any share, he was entitled for appointment of court receiver. 5. counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the partnership has extensive movable and immovable properties and if due share of the plaintiff and his interest is not protected, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss which will not be compensated ..... 1996 passed by mrs. justice k.k. baam and by that order the respondents were to act as an agent of the court receiver upon such terms and condition as the court receiver may deem fit. 4. counsel for the petitioner contended that the partnership was at will and it can be dissolved by any partner by giving a notice to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 1969 (HC)

Addepally Nageswara Rao and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : [1971]79ITR306(AP)

..... his dissent to be partner. (8) ...... (9) for the conduct of the affairs of the firm (and) for defining the rights and liabilities of the partnership as well as for dissolution, the current provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932, will apply. 1. (signed) addepalli nageswararao.2. (signed) addepalli nageswararao.3. (signed) addepalli kasiviswanadham.4. (signed) addepalli mareswararao.'12. on a consideration of clauses ..... calcutta high court in hoosen kasam dadav. commissioner of income-tax was preferable to the view taken by themadras high court and held at page 533 :' section 30 of the indian partnership act clearly lays down that aminor cannot become a partner, though with the consent of the adult partners he may be admitted to the benefits of ..... to understand the relationship between the major partners and a minor who is admitted to the benefits of the partnership under section 30 of the indian partnership act. although a minor cannot enter into an agreement of partnership so as to acquire the rights of the partnership and be subject to the obligations of a partuer still he can draw the benefits from such a firm ..... , satisfied that the guardian can enter into a contract on behalf of the minor.31. in this connection, it is relevant to note the language of section 4 of the indian partnership act. it says that, ' partnership ' is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 21 1960 (SC)

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City, Bombay Vs. Nandlal Gandal ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1960SC1147; (1961)63BOMLR208; [1960]40ITR1(SC); [1960]3SCR620

..... is a partnership between the coparcener individually and his other partners (see kshetra mohan sannyasi charan ..... coparcener, even when he is the karta, entering into partnership (1) [1950] s.c.r. 961. with others in carrying on a business is equally well settled. the partnership that is created is a contractual partnership and will be governed by the pro . visions of the indian partnership act, 1932. the partnership is not between the family and the other partners; it ..... sadhukhan v. commissioner of excess profits tax, west bengal) (1). the coparcener is undoubtedly accountable to the family for the income received, but the partnership is exclusively ..... it could be said that the firms of bombay and banaras constituted the affairs of the hindu undivided family. the businesses in bombay and banaras, according to the partnership act, belonged to nandlal and others. we are, therefore, of opinion that for assessment years 1945-46 ... the hindu undivided family was not resident in the taxable territories .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2006 (SC)

M.V. Karunakaran Vs. Krishanan (Dead) by Lrs.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2007SC1501; 2007(3)ALD39(SC); 2007(2)AWC1145(SC); 2007(1)KLT243(SC); (2007)147PLR247; 2006(14)SCALE7; 2007AIRSCW2027; 2007(3)CivilLJ685; 2007(3)AIRKarR350(SC)

..... keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, could not have been determined in such a proceeding. section 29 of the indian partnership act, 1932 states as to what would be the interest of transferee of a partner. sub-section (2) thereof determines the right of a transferee ..... his heirs and ors. : [1966]3scr400 , 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 ..... if the firm is dissolved or if the transferring partner ceases to be a partner thereof. the right the respective purchaser from the erstwhile partner of dissolved partnership, therefore, was required to be worked out in an independent proceeding.7. in addanki narayanappa and anr. v. bhaskara krishnappa (dead) and thereafter ..... they have not derived any share. therefore, the respondents had no right to offer resistance.5. it is not in dispute that the partnership stood dissolved on the death of madhavan. the heirs and legal representatives, therefore, could transfer the property at least to the extent of their ..... appeal preferred by the appellant herein.2. three brothers, madhavan, bahuleyan and karunakaran, were owners of the property. madhavan and bahuleyan started a partnership under the name and style of 'the trustful daily banking company'. madhavan died on 26.10.1960, leaving behind defendant nos. 3 to 5 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 1987 (HC)

P. Ramachandra Reddiar and P. Arjuna Reddiar Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...

Court : Kerala

Reported in : [1993]200ITR161(Ker)

..... individual otherwise than for adequate consideration or in connection with an agreement to live apart.' 61. kochu thommen j. (as he then was), held that a firm under the indian partnership act, 1932, is not a distinct legal entity apart from the partners constituting it and the firm's property or assets are only the property or assets of the partners and ..... of the firm. the basic ruling in this regard is the decision of the supreme court in addanki narayanappa v. bhaskara krishnappa : [1966]3scr400 . considering the scheme of the indian partnership act, mudholkar j., who delivered the judgment, observed that no partner can claim any exclusive right over the the properties which become the assets of the firm from whatever source they ..... : [1976]105itr144(ker) . a abdul rahim, travancore confectionery works v. cit : [1977]110itr595(ker) . it is also well-established that (at page 49 of 120 itr) 'a partnership firm, under the indian partnership act, 1932, is not a distinct legal entity apart from the partners constituting it and equally in law the firm as such has no separate rights of its own in ..... the properties and that, upon dissolution, to a share in the proceeds of sale of the partnership assets, after all such payments contemplated under section 48 of the indian partnership act have been met. section 29 of the indian partnership act, however, provides that, even during the subsistence of the partnership, a partner may assign his share to another but the right of the assignee is only .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 1993 (HC)

Kerala Publicity Bureau Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Kerala

Reported in : [1993]200ITR366(Ker)

..... documents of the firm which would show how the profit or loss had been actually apportioned between the partners and also by taking recourse to section 13(b) of the indian partnership act, 1932. we, therefore, hold, with great respect to the learned judges, that the decisions in cit v. ithappiri and george : [1973]88itr332(ker) and united hardwares v. cit : [1974]96itr348 ..... be shared is otherwise ascertainable and that, assuming the section did so require, clause 9 of the instrument satisfied that requirement. reliance was placed on section 13(b) of the indian partnership act.49. the supreme court, at the outset, rejected the contention of the assessee-firm that, if specific reference to individual shares of the partners in the loss of the firm ..... court decisions in kylasa sarabhaiah v. cit : [1965]56itr219(sc) and parekh wadilal jivanbhai v. cit : [1967]63itr485(sc) and also to the provisions under section 13(b) of the indian partnership act, 1932. ultimately, the bench came to the conclusion by applying the dictum laid down in n. t. patel's case : [1961]42itr224(sc) that specification of the individual shares of ..... and give it a limited meaning. the deed itself should contain the specification of both profit and loss and any other provision of law including section 13(b) of the indian partnership act shall not be looked into for the purpose of ascertaining the proportion of loss.33. in united hardwares v. cit : [1974]96itr348(ker) , the firm was constituted of three partners .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 09 1990 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nalli Silk Emporium and Another

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1991]192ITR79(Mad)

..... there is, however, no agreement to treat the firm as continuing notwithstanding the death of a partner, the partners have no option to treat the firm as continuing. under the indian partnership act, 1932, the firm gets dissolved and the income-tax officer is not entitled to ignore this consequence. there is nothing in the language of section 187, 188 or 189, ..... by the death of a partner. we have already pointed out that there is no contract contra and, by the force of the operation of section 42(c) of the indian partnership act, on the death of one of the partners on august 4, 1973, the firms stood dissolved. the stand taken by the assessee earlier or later in the course of ..... . on the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted, referring to the provisions of the deeds of partnership and section 42(c) of the indian partnership act, that, on the terms found in the partnership deeds and the application of the provisions of the indian partnership act, the conclusion was irresistible that the firm stood dissolved on the death of one of the partners and that ..... other matters, viz., matters not specifically referred to in the deeds of partnership, the provisions of the indian partnership act shall be applicable. in other words, there is, under the terms of the partnership, no contract to the contrary, as envisaged in section 42(c) of the indian partnership act. section 42(c) of the indian partnership act provides that, subject to contract between the partners, a firm is dissolved .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 1996 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shankar Cottons

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1997)137CTR(Mad)583; [1996]222ITR445(Mad)

..... and dumb person. a deaf and dumb person cannot be admitted to the benefits of the partnership as per the provisions of s. 30 of the indian partnership act, 1932. sec. 6 of the indian partnership act, 1932, determines the mode of existence of the partnership. expln. 2 to s. 6 of the indian partnership act states, who are all the persons who can receive a share in the profit of ..... the partnership business without making them as partners. sec. 30 of the indian partnership act states that a person who is a ..... along with the persons carrying on the business. it would mean that a major cannot be admitted to the benefits of partnership. admitting a major as a partner to the benefits of partnership was impliedly prohibited under s. 30 of the indian partnership act, 1932. 7. in view of the abovesaid legal position, we are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the tribunal ..... subject may not be a partner in a firm, but, with the consent of all the partners for the time being, he may be admitted to the benefits of the partnership. therefore, s. 30 of the indian partnership act provides that a minor cannot be a partner in a firm, but a minor can be admitted to the benefits of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 1996 (HC)

J.D. Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Guwahati

..... clause, it is abundantly made clear that the minor was admitted to the benefits of the firm and his rights and liabilities should be governed by section 30 of the indian partnership act and under section 30, a minor cannot be saddled with liabilities and he is not required to share losses though in clause (5), it has been mentioned, 'the profits and ..... .9. before we consider the rival contentions of the parties, it will be apposite to examine the deed of partnership and also to look to some of the relevant provisions of the indian partnership act as well as the income-tax act. we find the deed of partnership at pages 36 to 39 of the paper book. in the said deed, it has been recited as ..... firm to the extent of his share in the firm as per the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 30 of the indian partnership act. the appellate tribunal found that the deed was valid inasmuch as the said deed of partnership specified the shares of the partners in losses. the appellate tribunal, however, found that it was unable to accept the assessee's ..... such shares of profits as has been provided in this instrument with all the rights and liabilities as per section 30 of the indian partnership act. in clause (5) of the deed of partnership it has been recited that the profits and losses of the partnership business shall be divided and borne by the parties in equal proportions after adjustment of all expenses of the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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