Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 273ITR485(All)
..... opinion, has nothing to do with sub-section (1) of section 30 of the indian partnership act, which provides that a minor can be admitted to the benefits of partnership. section 2(a) of the partnership act defines an 'act of a firm' means any act or omission by all the partners, or by any partner or agent of the firm, which gives rise to a right enforceable by or against the firm. ..... minor.16. the appellate commissioner while allowing the appeal lost sight of the fact that sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 30 of the indian partnership act operates in different fields.17. in view of the above discussions, we are ..... it will not include sharing of losses by a partner or ..... of the opinion that the order of the tribunal granting registration to the assessee-firm under the income-tax act, 1961, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 42CompCas1(Raj); 1969()WLN498
..... 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 act shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner ..... section 69 of the partnership act stood in the way of filing the suit without the registration of the firm.8. that in the balance-sheet a sum of rs. 2,015-6-6, as a moiety of the commission from january 11, 1942, is credited to seth gadh mal and the same amount to seth motilal. similarly from january 17 ..... the instigation of motilal, defendant no. 2, and the members of his family created pandemonium and obstructed the secretary from discharging his duties. they also wanted to remove seth sobhag mal lodha forcibly from the chair. thereupon mr. lodha dissolved the meeting and he and ..... vide annexure 'a '. on the death of gadh mal occurring on january 11, 1942, the board of directors passed a resolution on january 17, 1942, appointing seth sobhag mal in his place till the appointment was duly made by the extraordinary general meeting of the company. thereafter, notice ..... .8. gadh mal died on january 11, 1942. the board of directors of the company appointed seth sobhag mal lodha on january 17, 1942, in place of seth gadh mal, deceased, as chairman and managing director of the company. this appointment was temporary and .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1991P& H130; (1991)99PLR188
..... barred by time.'6. apart from that 'partnership', as defined in section 4 of the indian partnership act, means that it is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profit of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. section 39 of the indian. partnership act provides that the dissolution of partnership between alt the partners of a firm is called the dissolution of ..... the indian partnership act. as a result of this finding, plaintiff's suit was decreed and a preliminary decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for rendition of accounts.4. learned counsel for the defendant-appellant submitted that whole approach of the learned single judge in this behalf was wholly wrong and illegal. the trial court rightly concluded the partnership ..... out of the money of new defendant's concern as is evident from the statement of mehar chand,dw3 and exhibits dw5/1 and dw5/2, and therefrom it was rightly held that the firm stood dissolved on 18-7-1971. in support of his contentions, he referred to amir chand v. jawahir mal, air 1916 lahore 410; moung tha ..... was held that refusal and neglect on the part of any one partner to perform the duties undertaken by him would give to any other partner the right to apply for dissolution or without legal proceedings the partnership could by agreement be dissolved.7. in any case, settlement of accounts between the partners is not the necessary ingredient for dissolution of the firm nor the continuance .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
..... of the managing partner, abin inderjit singh, with the same rights and privileges was a stranger to the partnership and yet he had been given the power to enter into contract on behalf of the firm which was invalid in law. he was also of the view that clause 9 of the partnership deed militated against the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932, but did not ..... exercising his power of revision under section 263 of the act, that the order of registration by the ito was 'erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue '. the possibility of prejudice to revenue arises by reason of there being a lesser rate for a partnership within the meaning of the indian partnership act, than for a mere association of ..... will be briefly indicated presently. but before doing so, it would be convenient not only to read clauses 8 and 9 of the partnership deed but also notice its other provisions : '(8) duties of the managing partner; the managing partner shall beexclusively responsible for carrying out the business of the partnershipand for taking all 'necessary decisions relating to the business of thispartnership and ..... appellate tribunal. the ito could not be directed to treat the status of the assessee as aop.17. shri manisana singh, learned counsel for the revenue, attempted tourge before us that the partnership was not supported by consideration sofar as the other three partners were concerned. we did not permit himto argue the question because this point does not appear to .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR2009Delhi129
..... the indian partnership act, 1932. it says that subject to contract between the partners, a firm is dissolved by the death of a partner. in view of this provision, it was open to the partners to incorporate a clause in the partnership deed that notwithstanding the death of one of the partners, the partnership would continue. however, no such clause was incorporated. therefore, in terms of section 42(c) of the indian partnership act, 1932 ..... , consequent upon the death of shri amar nath, the partnership firm stood dissolved by operation of law with effect from ..... them, for it is their own case that the firm m/s new bharat chatai bhandar comprised only of the defendants and the plaintiffs were not partners in the said firm. they, therefore, have no right to seek rendition of accounts in relation to the said firm.14. as the first two prayers have been declined, the question of granting relief with .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2007Bom56; 2007(1)ALLMR785; 2007(3)BomCR447
..... order1. the petitioners have challenged orders dated 25th april, 2005 and 12th october. 2004, passed by the registrar of firms, maharashtra state, mumbai under section 69-a of the indian partnership act, 1932, in terms of maharashtra amendment act, 29 of 1984 (for short 'mah. state amendment') by which a retrospective penalty of rs. 1,03,680/- has been levied for non-intimation of alterations in ..... the partnership deeds dated 17-4-1972, 21-8-1975 and 18-10-19/9.2. petitioner no. 1 adamji lookmanji & co. (for short 'the firm') is a partnership firm ..... 8th december, 1982 and dated 1st december, 1999. respondent no. 2 is the registrar of firms who is exercising the powers, functions and duties under the indian partnership act. mr. adamji yahyabhai jasdanwala, a partner of the firm, now retired, shifted his residence on 17th april, 1972. petitioner no. 2 shifted his residence on 21st august, 1975. mr. abbas jasdanwala, now retired, also shifted ..... had complied with the said requisition on 17th may, 2002.3. on 26th august, 2004, respondent no. 2 intimated to the petitioners about the delay of 17,280 days as per section 62-a of the act, in filing form 'd' and therefore called upon them to show cause why penalty of rs. 1,72,800/- should not be levied. the petitioner made .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1986Ori1
..... an unregistered firm, whether existing or dissolved, void. 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.' 10. a similar interpretation of section 69(2) of the act was handed down by a division bench of delhi high court in a case ..... institution of the suit but it has been registered after the institution of the suit. so, the suit is bound to fail for non-registration of the firm under section 69 of the indian partnership act it does not affect the merits of the suit and does not go to the root of the plaintiffs claim. so, it is a formal defect and it ..... by division benches. the great weight of authority is in favour of the opinion that registration will not put the suit on a proper basis and that the court's duty is to dismiss it. we consider that the majority opinion is correct.' 9. a full bench of the jammu and kashmir high court in a case reported in air i960 ..... is apt to quote the following from the judgment :-- 'the allahabad high court in 58 all. 495, the patna high court in 18 pat. 114, the lahore high court in 17 lah 275 and air 1938 lah 767 have all held that subsequent registration of the firm will not allow the suit to proceed. all these cases except the second lahore .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1963P& H469; 52ITR784(P& H)
..... partners for the time being, he may be admitted to the benefits of partnership. the clear language of the deed of partnership infringes the provisions of section 30 of the indian partnership act.the controversy between this court ..... to the extreme, even a minor who is admitted to the benefits of partnership would be competent to sign such an application. section 30 of the indian partnership act clearly indicates that, a minor cannot become a partner though with the consent of the adult partners he may be admitted to the benefits of partnership. in view of this exposition of the law any document beyond this ..... section cannot be regarded as valid for the purpose of registration. their lordships further observed ..... had found as a fact that the minor had become a full partner. in our view the decision of this court in ought to have been applied and could not be distinguished. it is provided by section 30 of the indian partnership act that a person who is a minor may not be a partner in a firm, but, with the consent of ail the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
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!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1943)45BOMLR691
..... that having regard to section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable. it is common ground that the partnership firm of kotibhaskar, amin & co. was not registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act. it is admitted by the first defendant company that this partnership was dissolved before the suit was filed. therefore the suit is by the partners of a dissolved firm ..... of property, but they are not the only ones.4. i must construe the word 'property' as used in sub-section (3) of section 69 of the indian partnership act in its widest sense, and there is no doubt that in that widest sense 'property' means all legal rights which a person can own. if a chose in action or an actionable claim is a legal ..... plaintiff in filing this suit to recover damages for breach of a contract is exercising his right to realise the property of the dissolved firm of which he alleges he was a partner, and although that firm was not registered, he is not debarred from maintaining the suit under section 69 of the indian partnership act.7. i, therefore, answer issue no. 1 in the affirmative.Tag this Judgment!