Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act 1932 section 17 rights and duties of partners Court: andhra pradesh Year: 2003

Mar 13 2003 (HC)

Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Wool Spinning Mills Limited and anr. Vs. G ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-13-2003

Reported in : AIR2003AP418; 2003(3)ALD419; III(2003)BC313

..... prohibition contained under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act. the said section reads as follows:'no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the register of firms as partners in the ..... and (2) that the persons suing are or have been shown in the register of firms as partners in the firm....'10. on the other hand the learned counsel for the first respondent argued that the objection under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act was not raised before the court-below or in the grounds of appeal. learned counsel submitted that whether ..... it is a registered partnership firm. those who desirous to avail the facility provided under the law to sue in the name of or on behalf ..... of the constitution of india, which right is always subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the law from time to time. the rights and obligations of a partnership firm which has no distinct legal existence but only a compendious name for the partners are regulated by the provisions of the indian partnership act. the law refuses to recognise the right of a partnership firm to sue third parties unless .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 20 2003 (HC)

Sivaramakrishna Traders Vs. Kamal Traders

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-20-2003

Reported in : 2003(2)ALD375; 2003(2)ALT626

..... the indian partnership act, 1932 had not been followed, the respondent is having a right to use the same trade mark of the appellant-firm. the learned counsel also had pointed out to the very object of constituting a partnership, the concept of partnership, the concept of dissolution, the concept of retirement and also had specifically drawn my attention to sections 9, 32 and 36 of the indian partnership act, 1932, hereinafter ..... injunction. be that as it may, it may be relevant to look at certain of the provisions of the act for the purpose of better appreciation of the facts of the case. section 9 of the act dealing with general duties of partners specifically says that partners are bound to carry on the business of the firm to the greatest common advantage, to be just and ..... faithful to each other, and to render true accounts and fullinformation of all things affecting the firm to any partner or his legal representative. sub-section (1) of section 32 of the act specifies .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 2003 (HC)

Bhangaru Packaging Co., Rep. by Its Proprietor, M. Madhusudan Rao Vs. ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-03-2003

Reported in : 2003(1)ALD(Cri)679; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)497; III(2003)BC352; 2003CriLJ2498

..... partnership deed was not the managing partner of the 1st respondent-firm, and therefore the proceedings are liable to be quashed. learned counsel for the 1st respondent-complainant contended that the name of the 1st respondent-firm was entered in the registrar of firms on 27.8.1991 and, therefore, there is no bar under the provisions of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act ..... that case the complainant-firm was not at all registered under the indian partnership act by the date of issuance of the cheque therein. 8. the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations in the complaint do not constitute an offence under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, cannot be accepted, because it is clearly mentioned in the complaint that ..... m. madhusudhan rao as managing director has a right to file the complaint on behalf of marvel organics is a question of fact to be decided at the time of trial. 7. the copy of the partnership deed, dated 2.6.2001, filed along with the petition shows that one mallela vasu became a partner in the place of mallela koteswara rao who ..... order are for the limited purpose of deciding the issue in the petition and shall not have any bearing on the trial of the case and shall not affect the rights of the parties. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 28 2003 (HC)

Ponnaganti Kondaiah Vs. Mallela Subba Rao (Died) Per Lrs and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-28-2003

Reported in : 2004(5)ALT505

..... respective pleadings that the partners of a firm --whether an existing firm or an erstwhile firm - have been fighting this litigation. it is needless to say that the parties would be governed by the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 ..... person alleged to be or to have been a partner ..... an unregistered firm, whether existing or dissolved, void, and that in other words, a partner of an erstwhile unregistered partnership firm cannot bring a suit to enforce a right arising out of a contract falling within the ambit of section 69 of the partnership act. it is also pertinent to note that the firm as such had not instituted any suit and it appears from the ..... matter for sufficiently a long time.11. section 69 of the indian partnership act deals with effect of non-registration. sub-section (1) of section 69 specifies as hereunder:'no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this act shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 12 2003 (HC)

Sharda Finance Corporation Vs. L. Laxman Goud and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-12-2003

Reported in : 2004(1)ALD(Cri)596; IV(2004)BC244

..... 2. the brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be stated as follows :the complainant is a registered partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act, 1952 and has been doing money lending business at gadwal. the complainant obtained the money lending licence on 4.11.1992. the ..... is no other document filed. but, on the other hand, pw-1 categorically stated that he is the managing partner of m/s. sarada finance corporation, which is registered under the partnership act. the said statement is not specifically denied or disputed in the cross-examination. it is not specifically suggested to him ..... (jhade swayam prakash) is not authorized to file criminal proceedings on behalf of the complainant company. ex. p-9 is the copy of the partnership deed. as seen from this document, pw-1 and another person by name g. jeeweshwar are, empowered to represent the firm before all the ..... the case is posted today. even today, none appeared for the accused.perused the record and the documents.8. pw-1 is the managing partner of the complainant company. he stated that the complainant company is carrying on business in money lending. he further stated that on 30.5.1996 ..... grave error in not properly appreciating the contents of ex. p-10.17. in view of the above discussion, i am of the considered view that the accused committed an offence punishable under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act and the findings of the learned magistrate are not in accordance with law .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 07 2003 (HC)

J.K. Finance and Chit Funds Vs. R. Surya Kumar and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-07-2003

Reported in : AIR2004AP190; 2004(1)ALD847; II(2004)BC558

..... ) of the act 4. section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 reads as follows:(2) no suits to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the register of firms as partners in the firm ..... registered one and also filed a copy of the partnership deed to show that one of the partners, who represented the firm for filing the suit was a partner of the firm. he further submitted that when once the firm is a registered one, the requirement under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 (for short 'the act') is complied with. therefore, there is no need for ..... registration of the partnership deed of a registered firm. therefore, the order of the lower court has to ..... against third party and the persons suing have been in the register of firms as partners in the firm. ex.a2, partnership deed contains the name of the partner, who represented the firm in filing the suit. therefore, the plaintiff complied with the requirements of section 69(2) of the act and the learned counsel for the defendant could not point out the non-compliance .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2003 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B. Narasimha Rao

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-31-2003

Reported in : 2003(4)ALT244; (2003)185CTR(AP)219; [2003]263ITR62(AP)

..... section 2(23) of the act, came to the conclusion that the minor who has been admitted to the benefits of partnership is also to be treated as a partner ..... as provided for in sub-section (3) of section 182.14. the question ..... partnership in a firm.15. it is clear from the reading of section 182 itself that a non-resident indian ..... under section 64(1)(iii) of the act. section 64(1)(iii) of the act as ..... the firm under section 182(3) of the act. the share income ..... right. as rightly contended by learned senior standing counsel it merely provides the procedure and mechanism for the realisation and recovery of tax from the partners ..... section 64(1)(iii) of the act, as it stood prior to its omission by the finance act ..... section 182(3) of the act and came to the conclusion that if any of the partners ..... of sections 70 - 75. (3) when any of the partners of ..... section 182 is a special provision relating to non-residents and the same excludes the operation of section 64(1)(iii) of the act ..... section 182, as it stood at the relevant time, no doubt, is a part of chapter xvi containing special provisions applicable to firms. section 182 of the act ..... section 64(1)(iii) of the act ?'2. master rajesh kumar and master kartik kumar, minor sons of b. narasimha rao, have been admitted to the benefits of partnership ..... partners of a registered firm. the question is as to whether it is a substantive provision or a procedural one. it does not in whatsoever manner exclude the operation of section 64 of the act. section 64 of the act .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 2003 (HC)

Vel White Horse Distellries Pvt. Ltd., Reptd. by Its Managing Director ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-23-2003

Reported in : 2003(4)ALD189

..... of the power of respondents 1 and 2 in granting licence. as seen from the provisions of the act, no person can manufacture intoxicating liquor without a licence issued under sections 17 and 28 read with the relevant rules. rule 3 of the distillery rules requires an application to be ..... approached the second petitioner for financial support promising that the latter would be treated as partner. an application was made under rule 11-a requesting the second respondent for conversion of proprietary concern into partnership firm in the name and style of m/s. vel white horse distilleries pvt. ..... first petitioner company and the second petitioner has nothing to do with the third respondent proprietary concern. the second petitioner has no right much less enforceable right to seek invalidation of the impugned government order and the consequential order of respondents 1 and 2.7. the fourth respondent filed ..... as follows. the third respondent is a proprietary concern which was initially granted a distillery licence in form d-2 of the rules to manufacture indian liquor, wine, whisky, brandy, zin and rum. the licence issued on 2-8-1982 was renewed for 1982-83. the fourth respondent ..... levy of duties, excise etc. on alcoholic liquors for human consumption. chapter iv of the act deals with manufacture, possession and sale of intoxicating liquor. the activities of manufacturing, possession and sale require a licence granted in accordance with sections 13, 14 and 15 read with the rules. section 16 deals .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 2003 (HC)

Vijay Prakash Vijay Varge and anr. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. b ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-24-2003

Reported in : 2003(1)ALD(Cri)397; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)534; 2003CriLJ2631

..... from the allegations, the complainant, engaged in the business of commission of agency, supplied castor oil seeds to a1-firm, of which the petitioners are partners, on different dates in the months of august and october 2000. the total amount payable by the accused was rs.6,90,982/-. except for the ..... affairs of the partnership firm, and that after receiving the goods with the knowledge that they would be responsible for payment, the accused cheated the complainant causing wrongful loss to it and therefore the accused committed the offences punishable under sections 409, 418 and 420 of the indian penal code.12. section 409 i.p. ..... entrusted to him in such manner that he becomes subject, by contract, express or implied, or by force of law, to a certain duty in regard to it. 14. section 418 i.p.c. is extracted below:'cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensure to person whose interest offender is bound to protect ..... the sales tax authorities. in spite of repeated requests, the accused did not clear the bills with a view to avoid liability. so, the acts committed by the accused are prima facie dishonest intention so as to cheat the complainant. at the request of the accused the goods were supplied on ..... the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled. these are two facets of the definitions of dishonesty.17. bearing the above principles in mind, it has to be seen whether the allegations in the complaint make out a prima facie case for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 06 2003 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gudivada Ramachandra Rao

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-06-2003

Reported in : (2004)187CTR(AP)543; [2004]265ITR668(AP)

..... could not be deemed to have failed or omitted to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment within the meaning of section 34(1)(a) of the indian income-tax act, 1922.'8. the supreme court further observed (page 630) : 'we do not think, for reasons already discussed, that this decision ..... the income-tax officer did not accept the plea put forth by the assessee and accordingly held that the omission to disclose the income under section 64(1) of the act amounts to concealment. thus the penalty was levied.5. the income-tax appellate tribunal vide its order dated september 25, 1990, in i.t ..... relevant facts.3. as is evident from the statement of the case of the reference, one smt. g. hemalatha, the wife of the assessee, was a partner in the firm, m/s. sri mahalakshmi boiled rice and groundnut oil mill company, machilipatnam, along with the assessee. the assessee in his income did not ..... form of the return requiring the assessee to disclose the income received by his wife and minor child from a firm of which the assessee was a partner, there was, in the absence in the return of any head under which the income of the wife or minor child could be shown, no ..... (page 628) 'that the words 'his income' in section 139, sub-section (1), must include every item of income which goes to make up his total income assessable under the act. the amounts representing the shares of the spouse and minor child in the profits of the partnership firm would be part of 'his income' for the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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