Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act 1932 Page 1 of about 50,648 results (0.248 seconds)

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(ker ..... 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 the ..... the proportion in which loss is to be shared is as important as specification of the shares in profit. even though reference was made to section 13(b) of the indian partnership act, 1932, the bench took the view that the expression ' the individual shares of the partners' in section 184 should normally cover both profit and loss and there was no compelling reason ..... v. subramanian chettiar, air 1934 mad 494 ; [1935] ilr 58 mad 25. the above decision considered the scope of section 253(2) of the indian contract act, 1872, which is reproduced in section 13(b) of the indian partnership act, 1932, and it was held that two presumptions are clubbed in one sub-section. the first is, if no specific contract was proved, the shares of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 1996 (HC)

Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hassan Chand and Sons

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : [1997]224ITR244(Raj)

..... in that previous year, (ii) before the end of the previous year in any other caseaa (b) where the firm is registered under the indian partnership act, 1932 (ix of 1932), or where the deed of partnership is registered under the indian registration act, 1908 (xvi of 1908), before the end of the previous year of the firm, and (c) where the application is for renewal of registration ..... and to pay to the guardian of his estate an equal share in the profits of the new firm in accordance with the provisions contained in section 37 of the indian partnership act, 1932. the guardian was not to bear the losses which were to be shared equally by the two remaining partners who were to carry on the business. shri abdul razaq in ..... . he held the view that the guardian of the heirs of the deceased partner constituted the third partner in the firm and, therefore, the provisions of section 37 of the indian partnership act, 1932, did not apply to the case.10. having lost its case before the income-tax officer and the appellate assistant commissioner for both the years, the assessee-firm approached the ..... december 31, 1958, no profits were attributable to the use of his share in the properties of the firm so as to attract the provisions of section 57 of the indian partnership act, 1932, to the facts of the present case. the income-tax officer, therefore, held that neither the application was signed by all the partners nor were the profits and losses distributed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 12 2001 (HC)

Polaroid India Private Limited Vs. Nav Nirman Co. and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2001(2)BomCR657; (2001)2BOMLR145; (2001)1CompLJ415(Bom)

..... .5. there is no doubt about the fact that in the case of a partnership registered under the indian partnership act, 1932, the remedy for a dissolution of partnership is also provided in chapter vi of the act. the indian partnership act, 1932 provides for a dissolution of a partnership firm in section 39 and enunciates various modes of dissolution amongst them, in section 40 a ..... company being wound up.'therefore the remedy to seek a dissolution of a registered partnership under the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 is not ousted by the provisions of part x of the companies act. 1956. equally, the existence of the remedy under the indian partnership act, 1932 to seek dissolution does not bar the remedy to apply for winding up under ..... not therefore apply to a firm which is duly registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. it has been sought to be contended that under section 583 of the act only an unregistered company may be wound up and the respondent which is duly registered under the indian partnership act, 1932 is not an 'unregistered company' within the meaning of the expression ..... used in the companies act. 1956.3. it is common ground that the first respondent is a partnership which was registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932. the question as to the maintainability of the petition .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1960 (HC)

Kajaria Traders (India) Ltd. Vs. Foreign Import and Export Association

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1961Bom65; (1960)62BOMLR753

..... come up before me under clause 36 of the letters patent for the determination of the questions following:--'whether in view of the provisions contained in section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the present petition is maintainable and what provisions should be made for the costs of the parties to the petition.'there has been a difference of opinion between mr. ..... 8 provided there was no other impediment in doing so. mr. justice mudholkar considered that section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, constituted such an impediment. mr. justice naik was of the contrary opinion. sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, provide as follows:--'69(1). no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this ..... ' used in section 69(3) cannot be construed so as to embrace an application made under section 8 of the indian arbitration act, 1940.17a. in the result, the question whether in view of the provisions contained in section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the present petition is maintainable, is answered in' the affirmative.18. as regards costs, there is no reason to ..... appointed by consent of all the parties. in my view, the right to make an application under section 8 of the arbitration act is not a right arising from a contract within the meaning of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932.6. the next point to be considered is whether an application under section 8 is covered by the words 'other proceeding' .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 03 2006 (HC)

Ess Vee Traders and ors. Vs. Ambuja Cement Rajasthan Limited

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2006(3)ARBLR152(Delhi); IV(2006)BC289; 131(2006)DLT341; 2006(90)DRJ293

..... position of law is that registration is a mandatory pre-condition for the institution of a suit or other proceeding as contemplated under section 69(2) and (3) of the indian partnership act, 1932. if on the date of institution of the suit or proceeding, the firm is not registered, subsequent registration during the pendency of the suit or proceeding will not cure this ..... non-registration of firms. it also held that the provisions of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 were mandatory and make the registration of a firm a condition precedent to the institution of a suit of the nature mentioned therein. obviously, all these observations with regard to ..... . smt mohan devi and ors. air 1978 del 92, wherein the said division bench had taken the view that the point of time contemplated in section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 was the time of institution of the suit. the division bench had taken the view that sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 69 were substantive provisions intended to discourage ..... . the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 are the partners of the said firm. according to the learned counsel for the respondent in view of the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the effect of non-registration of the petitioner no. 1 firm would be that it would be barred from instituting the present petition. the learned counsel for the petitioners contended .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 19 1969 (HC)

Seth Sobhag Mal Lodha and ors. Vs. Edward Mills Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : [1972]42CompCas1(Raj); 1969()WLN498

..... the filing of the partition suit, the status of the joint family underwent a change and the business became a partnership business. under section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, no suit could have been instituted unless the partnership was registered. section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, runs as follows :' (1) no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this ..... of plaintiff no, 1 as also for the recovery of the damages was not maintainable. the suit was barred by section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, as the firm, kamal nayan hamir singh, was a partnership firm and not a joint hindu family firm and it could not have filed a suit without registration. defendant no. 2 also pleaded that ..... place by the filing of a partition suit and when thefamily business continued to be conducted as before, a contractual partnership based upon an implied agreement came into existence and when such a partnership was formed, section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, would govern the case and no suit could have been instituted by or on behalf of the firm without registration ..... second point raised on behalf of the appellants. it pertains to the applicability of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932. learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the agreement of 1906 was not between the two joint family firms. the partnership agreement properly described was between the two members of the two families and that it is inappropriate to .....

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)

..... deaf 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 minor ..... 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 in .....

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)

..... such 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 when ..... /1976 : [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 ..... . thereafter, the supreme court held that the position as regards the nature of a firm and its property in indian law under the indian partnership act, 1932, is almost the same as in english law. here also a partnership firm is not a distinct legal entity and the partnership property in law belongs to all the partners constituting the firm. in addanki narayanappa v. bhaskara krishnappa : [1966 ..... 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 (section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932). for this joint venture, they contribute capital which may be either money, or movable or immovable properties having a value in money set on them. whatever is contributed by a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 1980 (HC)

P.N. Sarmah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Guwahati

..... when the minor above named attains majority and becomes also a partner in the firm, in accordance with the provisions of section 30(5) of the indian partnership act, 1932, the share of all the then partners shall be 20% both in profit as well as in loss (if any) with effect from the deewali ..... it provides that the minor on attainment of majority shall become a partner in the firm in accordance with the provisions of section 30(5) of the indian partnership act, 1932, and further provides that :' the share of all the then partners shall be 20% both in profit as well as in loss (if any) ..... such a person ' does not express, on attaining majority or on obtaining knowledge that he had been admitted to the benefits of partnership all these consequences are expressed in section 30 of the indian partnership act, 1932. section 30 lays down that : (a) a minor cannot be a partner in a firm, but with the consent of ..... all the partners he may be admitted to the benefits of the partnership--vide section 30(1); (b) such a minor has ..... order of the ito and allowed registration to the firm for the assessment year 1968-69. the aac, relied on section 30(5), of the indian partnership act, and held that in the instant case six months had not expired from the date of attaining majority by ved prakash and that ved prakash continued .....

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 (3 ..... attention was drawn is clause (9) of the deed, that clause merely states that the current provisions of the indian partnership act of 1932 will apply for the conduct of the affairs of the company and for defining the rights and liabilities of the partnership as well as for its dissolution. we fail to see how this clause makes the minor a partner of the ..... 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 ..... 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 .....

Tag this Judgment!


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