Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act 1932 section 17 rights and duties of partners Sorted by: recent Page 1 of about 673 results (0.099 seconds)

Aug 17 1999 (HC)

S. Kireetendranath Reddy Vs. A.P. Transco, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad an ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1999(5)ALD398; 1999(5)ALT47

..... rights and duties fictionally to a legal person, experience can also be attributed to a legal person if any of the rights of the legal person depends upon the experience it has gained through its human agency. but similar treatment cannot be extended to a no-legal person. 17. section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932, defines the terms 'partnership','partners', 'firm' and 'firm-name'. it reads: '4. definition of 'partnership':--'partnership ..... ' is 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. 'partner', 'firm' and the 'firm-name':--persons who have entered into ..... partnership with one another are called individually 'partners' and collectively 'a firm', and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 12 2006 (SC)

Shreedhar Govind Kamerkar Vs. Yesahwant Govind Kamerkar and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2007(3)BomCR1010; 2006(14)SCALE174; 2007(1)LC0054(SC)

..... available on records. 15. what forms the property of the firm is stated in section 14 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (for short, 'the act'). it reads as under:14. the property of the firm.- subject to contract between the partners, the property of the firm includes all property and rights and interests in property originally brought into the stock of the firm, or acquired, ..... its discretionary jurisdiction under article 136 of the constitution of india.2. having regard to the provisions contained in section 17 of the partnership act, the suit was not barred by limitation.3. no question as regards applicability of section 15 of the bombay act having been raised in the written statement, nor any issue having been framed in that behalf, the same should ..... the statute apparently forbids'. thus, in brown v. duncan, it was held that a partnership of distillers was not illegal, even though one partner carried on business as a retail dealer in spirits within two miles of the distillery (contrary to the duties on sprits act 1823, sections 132, 133) and was not registered as a member of the firm in the excise ..... view to determine the said question, we may notice some other provisions of the act as well.17. rights and duties of partners. - subject to contract between the partners -after a change in the firm(a) - where a change occurs in the constitution of a firm, the mutual rights and duties of the partners in the reconstituted firm remain the same as they were immediately before the change .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 28 1973 (HC)

Mrudula Nareshchandra Vs. Controller Estate of Duty

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : [1975]100ITR297(Guj)

..... the learned advocate of the accountable persons suffer from a serious misapprehension as regards the incidence of partnership agreement. 12. sections 14 and 15 of the indian partnership act preclude any partners from claiming any property or any specific share in any property of the firm so long as the partnership subsists and the accounts thereof are not taken. this is because of the community of interest ..... the value of the share of the deceased in the goodwill of th firm under section 5. shri patel also contended that duty is not attracted even under the provisions of section 7 of the act for three reasons, namely : (1) looking to the nature of a partner's interest in partnership assets, it cannot be said that the interest of the deceased in the goodwill ..... khushal khemgar shah v. mrs. khorshed banu, wherein it is clearly stated that the partnership act does not operate to extinguish the right in the assets of the firm of a partner who dies when the partnership agreement provides that on death the partnership is to continue (vide paragraph 4 of the report). 17. in view of this, our answer to question no. 1 is in the ..... circumstances of the case, the interest of the deceased in the firm of messrs. g. bhagwatiprasad & co. of ahmedabad was property within the meaning of the provisions of the estate duty act 2. if the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether, the on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, having regard to the terms of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 2017 (HC)

Monojit Das Vs. Sujit Roy Chowdhury and Anr.

Court : Kolkata

..... alleged expulsion of the petitioner from the firm is violative to clause 27 of the deed of partnership and section 33 of the indian partnership act, 1932; (vi) whether the partnership firm has been dissolved on delivery of notice dated 22.11.2016 of the petitioner issued under section 43 of the indian partnership act, 1932; (vii) whether the respondents are liable to pay the capital of the petitioner in the ..... registered. learned counsel tried to contend that the petitioner being a partner of the firm could not maintain ..... of the petition. (i) whether the respondents have violated the general duties of the partners in operation the business account of the firm, avoiding the petitioner, in violation of the clause 17 of the deed of partnership, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the account shall be operated by the partners jointly; (ii) whether the respondents have misappropriated funds from the business ..... the firm avoiding the petitioner; learned counsel for the respondents took a most worthless point based on section 69 of the partnership act. it enacts that unless the firm is registered and shown to be so in the register of firms a partner does not have a right to institute a suit against the firm or any other person. admittedly, the firm is not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 2014 (HC)

Jayraj Devidas and Others Vs. Nilesh Shantilal Tank and Another

Court : Mumbai

..... of their rights as partners at the hands of group 'b'. group 'a' complained of their being denied access to accounts of group 'b' indulging in mismanagement of affairs and siphoning off of the funds and so on. ajay arora (of group "a") filed a civil suit which was held to be not-maintainable in view of section 69(3) of the indian partnership act, 1932; the ..... is not a suit. 17. on conjoint reading of section 69 of the indian partnership act with section 33 and 34 of the bombay stamps act makes it clear that effect of non registration of a partnership firm would be on the suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by the indian partnership act filed on or behalf of any person showing as a partner in a firm against ..... attracted only in future on happening of certain eventualities. in case any further instrument is executed in future in furtherance of the mou, respondents can pay the difference of stamp duty payable by the respondents on such document. the respondents have not impugned the findings of the learned principal district judge on this issue. 14. on perusal of the memorandum of ..... chief justice of guwahati high court dismissed the appellant's application by order dated 28.5.2010. he held that the lease deed was compulsorily registrable under section 17 of the registration act and section 106 of the tp act; and as the lease deed was not registered, no term in the said lease deed could be relied upon for any purpose and therefore clause 35 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 2014 (HC)

Mrs. Vibha Mehta Vs. M/S. Hotel Marina and ors.

Court : Delhi

..... . the relevant provisions of the partnership act, 1932 are as follows: section 9 general duties of partners- partners are bound to carry on the business of the firm to greatest common advantage, to be just and faithful to each other, and to render true accounts and full information of all things affecting the firm to any partner, his heir or legal representative. section 17 rights and duties of partners -after a change in ..... was only known to the defendants that the value of the capital account of the plaintiff was much higher. the defendants were under a duty to disclose the ..... shows that the defendants were very well aware that how much profit had been earned by the partnership firm and how much more sums would be allocated to each of the partners capital accounts. xxx xxx xxx xvi. it is submitted that under section 9 of the indian partnership act, the plaintiff and defendants nos. 2 to 9 were in a fiduciary relationship and this fact ..... case is that defendant no.8 was under an obligation to disclose the profit which had accrued to her share till 03.03.2006. it is true that under section 9 of indian partnership act, the partners are bound to be just and faithful to each other, and to render true accounts and fao(os) 15/2013 page 27 full information of all things affecting .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 20 2008 (HC)

Green Sea Marine and ors. Vs. V.A. Anty and anr.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 2008(2)KLJ780

..... to the firm.17. 'partnership' is the relation between the persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all - see section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932, hereinafter; the 'ip act'. section 2(a) of the ip act defines an 'act of a firm', to mean any act or omission by all the partners, or by any partner or agent of ..... conduct of the business of the firm. there can be no partnership without a minimum number of two partners. clause (b) of section 12 of the ip act provides that every partner is bound to attend diligently to his duties in the conduct of the business, while clause (a) thereof provides that every partner has a right to take part in the conduct of the business. the mutual ..... rights and duties of the partners of a firm may be determined by contract between the partners - see section 11(1) of the ip act. therefore, subject to the terms of the contract between partners, law enjoins that every partner is bound to attend diligently to his ..... be express or may be implied by a course of dealing. therefore,' in the light of section 4 of the ip act and having in mind the manner in which the mutual rights and duties are determined qua the liability of every partner to attend diligently to his duties in the conduct of the business, it has to be that in so far as third party .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 2006 (HC)

Vemuri Lakshmi Nageswara Rao and anr. Vs. Joint Collector and Addition ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2006(3)ALD317

..... firm. such property shall have to be used by the partners exclusively for the purpose of business. section 17 of partnership act adumbrates the rights and duties of the partners. it is to the effect that (a) where a change occurs in the constitution of a firm, the mutual rights and duties of the partners in the reconstituted firm remain the same as they were ..... lawful and therefore by transferring the licence, the first respondent has violated rule 11-b(2) of the rules. to appreciate this contention, a reference to some of the provisions of the partnership act has ..... renewed improperly without an affidavit and therefore, the impugned order is vitiated by improper procedure adopted by the first respondent. the learned counsel placed reliance on various provisions of the partnership act, 1932, as well as the decisions reported in m.c. chockalingam v. v. manickavasagam : [1974]2scr143 , koratani suramma v. government of a.p. 1982 (1) alt ..... alone has apparent control over the immovable property? whether there is unity of ownership among the partners with regard to the possession as well? these questions have to be answered necessarily by referring to the indian partnership act, 1932 (the partnership act, for brevity).32. as contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, the possession of the third respondent is not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 2003 (HC)

Shah Velji Narsee Vs. Vasantrai Umiyashankar Pandya and anr.

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!

Apr 11 2000 (HC)

Mahendra Kumar Poddar Vs. Bansal Builders and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR2001Cal58,2001(2)ARBLR62(Cal)

..... under section 8 of the act as handed over to court, i find the arbitration clause which is as follows :'15. all disputes and questions whatsoever which shall arise during the partnership or afterwards, between the partners or their respective representative or between one partner and the representative of the other partner relating to the business of affairs of the firm or the rights, duties ..... that the declaration of dissolution of the firm can also be decided by the arbitrator and in such case the word 'court' under section 44 of the indian partnership, act, 1932 includes arbitrator.31. therefore, the dispute of dissolution of partnership firm can also be raised before the arbitrator.32. thus the application fails.33. however, no order is passed as to costs.34 ..... by the arbitrator similarly the dissolution of a partnership firm cannot also be decided by an arabitrator.16. according to the petitioner that the dispute before the arbitrator pestulates what can be referred to the arbitrator is only the dispute or matter which the arbitrator is competent or empowered to decide.17. he further cited a judgment reported in : ..... [1999]1scr89 ( sundram finance ltd. v. nepc india ltd.) by saying that the provisions of arbitration and conciliation act. 1996 is very different from the arbitration act, 1940 and to be construed as uninfluenced by the principles underlyingin 1940 act. section 8 of the new act is not in pari .....

Tag this Judgment!


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