Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act 1932 section 17 rights and duties of partners Court: mumbai Year: 2003 Page 1 of about 5 results (0.040 seconds)

Mar 03 2003 (HC)

Shah Velji Narsee Vs. Vasantrai Umiyashankar Pandya and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-03-2003

Reported in : 2003(4)ALLMR1054; 2004(2)BomCR352; 2003(3)MhLj979

..... , 1983, the name of ku. shaila bhavanji shah was not registered as a partner of the suit firm. section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 along with maharashtra amendment reads as follows : 'section 69. effect of non-registration.--(1) no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this act shall be instituted in any court by or on a behalf of any person ..... of the partnership act nor sub-section (4) of the said act lay down any exception to the said sub-section by stating therein that in case of an application being made to the register (sic: registrar), the bar of sub-section (2) is diluted. 17. it will be profitable to examine the observations made in the case of bharat suryodaya mills co. ltd., ahmedabad v. ..... categorically taken a defence that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiffs-firm is not registered under the provisions of indian partnership act. in view of this categorical averment, it was the duty of the plaintiff to supply the names of all the partners which admittedly has not been done. in this view of the matter, the provision of order 30, civil procedure code also have ..... mohatla brothers a firm, : air1969guj178 . in the said judgment, the scope of order 30 vis-a-vis section 69(2) of the partnership act is also discussed. in para 6, after considering .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 23 2003 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.N. Naik Associates and anr. and Ranga ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-23-2003

Reported in : 2004(2)BomCR801; (2004)187CTR(Bom)162; [2004]265ITR346(Bom)

..... consideration which are as under :'1. whether the deed of family settlement dated january 30, 1997, amounts to dissolution of partnership formed by agreement as contemplated under section 40 of the indian partnership act ?2. whether the distribution of assets of the firm amongst the retiring partners dated january 30, 1997, and the deed of reconstitution dated january 30, 1997, would amount to transfer of the ..... court posed the question whether the dissolution of a firm extinguishes the firm's rights in the assets of the partnership so as to constitute a transfer of assets under section 2(47). after considering various judgments and the provisions of the indian partnership act, the court observed that a partnership under the indian partnership act is not a distinct entity. if that be the position, the apex court ..... matter pertains to an assessment before the amendment act came into force in 1988. the issue was in respect of the retirement of a partner from a partnership. the real issue in that case was whether a partner who has retired and had received his share of the assets would be liable to be taxed under section 47.17. we may now consider the judgment in ..... b.t. patil and sons v. cgt : [1997]224itr431(kar) . we will advert to some facts. in that case, the issue before the division bench of the karnataka high court was, charging of gift-tax. in that case there was a firm with five partners which owned several .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 25 2003 (HC)

Mr. (Sic)qassim Mohd. Yousuf Aquil Bastaki Vs. Smt. Sultana Abdul Ahad ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-25-2003

Reported in : 2003(3)ALLMR915; 2003(3)ARBLR75(Bom); 2003(5)BomCR807; 2003(3)MhLj373

..... names are not registered with the register of firms. the earlier partnership had petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 1 as partners. the partnership of the year 1990 was registered on 28th may, 1990. this has been so pointed out, considering section 69 of the indian partnership act as amended in the state of maharashtra. it is contended that this court would have no jurisdiction to hear ..... may, 1990. the names of the partners, as shown in the certificate issued, are the petitioners and respondent no. 1 and some others. those others have purportedly retired from the partnership.section 69 of the partnership act, amended in the state of maharashtra, provides that no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by the act shall be instituted in any court by ..... be or to have been a partner in the firm unless ..... or on a behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm any person alleged to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 25 2003 (HC)

The Court Receiver, High Court, as Receiver of the Business and Assets ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-25-2003

Reported in : 2003(3)ALLMR873; 2003(5)BomCR501; 2003(27)PTC555(Bom); [2003]45SCL335(Bom)

..... question is does the goodwill in the business of the partnership firm exist in this situation 7 it seems to be clear that it does. section 14 of the indian partnership act, 1932 expressly stipulates that the property of the firm will include the goodwill of the business. section 53 recognises the right of the partner to restrain another partner from carrying on business in the firm until the affairs ..... be assigned or transmitted in the same way if at the same time registered trade marks in respect of the same goods are assigned or transmitted to the same person.'17. however, dr. tulzapurkar, learned counsel or the defendant no. 1, submits that a man would have a trade mark in gross. it must be attached to a goodwill and the ..... kong and singapore stopped its sale in singapore. having stopped selling in singapore due to imposition of import duty on toothbrush, it sued the defendant for an injunction against passing-off. this was after they assigned their residual goodwill in singapore together with the right of user of the marks in issue, on an exclusive basis. the injunction was refused throughout and ..... company has been operated b the defendant no. 3 to use the deceptively similar trade marks knowing fully well that the partnership firm has stopped using those marks and possibly also with a view to be relieved of the duty to purchase the marks in the course of sale of the marks upon dissolution and winding up. in this view of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2003 (HC)

Om Sai Hotels and Restaurants, a Partnership Firm Duly Registered Unde ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-30-2003

Reported in : (2004)ILLJ895Bom; 2004(2)MhLj547

..... be dissected from that of m/s. copper chimney, which was already covered under the provisions of the said act.3. the few facts relevant for the decision are that the petitioner is a partnership firm duly registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act and engaged in the business of running a hotel in the premises at saki naka, andheri, mumbai. on completion ..... not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to claim infancy protection even after the amendment to the section 16 of the said act. it was also sought to be contended that before passing of the impugned order, the petitioner had never claimed any right for continuation of the infancy period beyond 11th september, 1997 and the plea in that regard has been ..... benefits under the legislation could be retrospectively taken away by legislation, but then the statute taken away such rights or benefits must expressly reflect its intention to that effect. the infancy period prior to the amended provision of section 16(1)(d) was five years in the case of establishments employing 20 to 50 workers and in the event this infancy benefit ..... legislature should have been clearly reflected in the amended provision itself that the rights and benefits which had already accrued stood withdrawn. the amended clause 16(1)(d) came on the statute book on 2 june, 1988, when it was assented by the president of india but the amended section 16 was put into operation only with effect from 1st august, 1988 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 14 2003 (HC)

Kuldipkumar Girdhar Das and Co., a Registered Partnership Firm Through ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-14-2003

Reported in : 2003(4)ALLMR77; 2003(6)BomCR594; 2004(1)MhLj71

..... controversy raised in the present group of petitions, facts in the first petition (writ petition no. 3433 of 2003) may briefly be stated.6. the petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. it is a member of the federation of associations of maharashtra (fam). it is engaged in business of trading in jaggery since 1993. the petitioner is also a ..... details of licences possessed by the petitioner have been mentioned in the petition.9. the petitioner stated that the term molasses was defined in clause (28) of section 2 of the act. clause (28) of section 2, as it originally stood, reads as under:-'molasses means the heavy, dark coloured viscous liquid produced in the final stage of the manufacture of gur or ..... counsel on behalf of the first respondent that all actions have been taken by him in larger public interest. in our view, however, that does not give the first respondent right to ignore or violate an order passed by this court. once we hold that the action of sealing of godowns or seizure of goods 'coercive action' within the meaning of ..... assistant government pleaders, on behalf of the respondents, to an affidavit-in-reply filed by the commissioner of state excise on june 9, 2003 and also further affidavit dated june 17, 2003.28. in the first affidavit, it was stated that when the matters were placed before the learned vacation judge, only one relief was granted, viz., unsealing of godowns. so .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 2003 (TRI)

Mafatlal Holdings Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-23-2003

Reported in : (2004)85TTJ(Mum.)821

..... the registrar of firms. in the case of dulichand laxminarayan v. cit (1956) 29 itr 535 (sc), the hon'ble supreme court held that section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932, clearly requires the presence of three elements to constitute a firm namely (i) that there must be an agreement entered into by two or more persons ..... was not capital contribution as the same has been shown under the heading "loans and advances". the learned departmental representative also made reference to p. 17 of the ao's order and argued that m/s arvi associates had stated that they had purchased 1,04,16,530 equity shares of nocil ..... assessee had shown net profit at rs. 88,39,173, the dividend income at rs. 71,19,180 and profit on sale of investments of rs. 17,06,529. thus, it makes abundantly clear that the assessee was carrying on the business during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, otherwise ..... term investments of rs. 71,19,180 which has been taxed as income from other sources and profit on sale of long-term investments of rs. 17,06,579 which has been taxed as capital gains.thus, according to the ao, this income does not include any business income or operational income. ..... learned counsel has also rightly pointed out that there is no requirement under the law that in case of transfer of an asset by a partner to the firm in which he is a partner, the amount of sale consideration has got to be credited to his capital account. sub-section (3) of section 45 provides when a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 2003 (HC)

Prayagchand Hariram Vs. Deota Cloth Centre and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-02-2003

Reported in : 2004(1)MhLj250

..... the column of other places of business, amravati is not shown. the learned additional district judge, amravati, placed reliance on the provision of section 58 of indian partnership act which requires that the details of other places where the firm carries on business are also to be supplied to the registrar of firms. this ..... was not done by the plaintiff - firm. but merely on that basis, it cannot be said that amravati branch of the plaintiff - firm is on par with the unregistered firm. the requirements of section ..... the firm should be registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the register of firms as partners in the firm. the provision of section 58 of the partnership act shows that there can be more than one place of business of the firm. the place where the principal ..... of rs. 12 per cent per annum from the date of suit till the realisation. the trial court held that the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm.4. the lower appellate court, i.e. the additional district judge, amravati, reversed the judgment and order of the trial court in regular ..... of one of the places of business of the firm amounted at the worst to a mistake which was capable of rectification under section 64 of the act but which did not take away from the fact that the firm itself was registered.'thus, the ratio of the above case is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 22 2003 (HC)

Vijaykumar Bhogilal Patel Vs. Karim Mohammed Maredia and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-22-2003

Reported in : 2004(1)ARBLR540(Bom); 2004(2)BomCR719; 2004(1)MhLj966

..... held that it would be within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to answer the disputes referred to it. the language of section 44 of the partnership act would show that the suit filed at the instance of a partner, the court may dissolve a firm on various grounds which are given therein, including on the ground of it being just and ..... completion of 3 months period which event has yet to happen. this court, therefore, would retain jurisdiction to try the suit on the ground that section 44(g) of the partnership act that dissolution of a partnership on the ground that it is just and equitable, is specifically the power of the court and not of the arbitrator. in rehmatunissa begum (supra ..... partners. death, retirement, insolvency or insanity of any partner shall not dissolve the partnership.'clause 15 of the deed of partnership reads as under:--'all disputes and differences arising between the partners or question in connection with the partnership or this deed shall be referred to the arbitrators one to be appointed by each party or by his/her personal representative under the provisions of the indian ..... arbitration act, 1940 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 19 2003 (HC)

P. Ramachandran Nair Vs. Smt. Suparna Tapan Das

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-19-2003

Reported in : AIR2003Bom457; 2003(3)ALLMR638; 2003(6)BomCR35

..... assistance. the second decision relied upon by shri. ravi is sushila bala shah v. saraswati mondia reported in : air1991cal166 wherein the expression 'sign or affix mark' occurring in section 63(a) of indian succession act was interpreted and it was held that even if the testator is capable of writing but on account of weakness he is unable to put his signature, he ..... a tailoring business in his three shops as sole proprietor thereof. sometime in april 1978, the deceased had taken his son alok as a partner in his business 'perfect tailors' but the said partnership was terminated and/or the said alok retired from the partnership from 27-4-1992, as his relations with the deceased were strained. the said alok got married on ..... which the deceased was suffered from. dr. vakil has further stated that the deceased suffering from paralytic stroke which paralysed his left side completely because of glioma already present in right side of his brain. 18. on seeing the laboratory report dated 31-10-1904 and discharge cards of the deceased from bhatia general hospital as well as shruti nursing home ..... it was prolonged by medication. he has stated that he checked the medical record of the deceased and came to know that there was almost no chance of his recovery. 17. dr. vakil has explained as to what is meant hepatic encephalopathy. he has stated that it is a neuro psychiatric syndrome whose manifestation ranges from subtle personality changes to coma .....

Tag this Judgment!

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