Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-17-1964
Reported in : 59ITR457(Cal)
..... produces returns and divide this return according to respective interest, does not make them partners. as regards sharing the profits within the meaning of section 4 of the indian partnership act, a mere common interest will not make a partnership unless there is a common business. it is indeed true that a right to participate in the profits of trade and business is a strong test of ..... and indefinite import and connotes something which occupies attention and labour of a person for the purpose of profit. the word means almost anything which is an occupation or a duty requiring attention as distinguished from sport or pleasure and is used in the sense of an occupation continuously carried on for the purpose of profits. a concern by reason of ..... a partnership within the meaning of the partnership act, 1932. accordingly, it seems to us that the principles enunciated in the aforesaid decision do not apply to cases governed by the provisions of section 4 of the indian partnership act. section 6 of this act provides that in determining whether a group of persons is or is not a firm, or whether a person is or is not a partner in .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-09-1964
Reported in : AIR1965All586
..... 30 of civil p. c. has no application to the instant case, inasmuch as jai jai ram manohar lal is not a firm within the meaning of section 4 of the indian partnership act. it has no partners at all. the business is admittedly a joint family concern, of which the various members of the family are owners without specification of their respective shares. there ..... the rights and liabilities of such a firm are not exclusively regulated by the contract act but by hindu law. such joint family business must sue either in the name of its karta or in the name of all its members, inasmuch as the members of a joint family are not partners in the sense in which that term is used in the partnership act ..... , the suit in the name of manohar lal shall be deemed to have been instituted on 18-7-1952 vide section 22 of the indian limitation act, which would obviously be beyond the period of limitation prescribed by law.9. for authority mr. agarwala rightly relies on two cases: daud sayad mahomed v. mahomed sayad : air1926bom366 and northern bank of india ltd. v. ramesh ..... chandra, a. i. r. 1932 lah 314 for the proposition that where the person originally impleaded as plaintiff had no right to sue .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-09-1964
Reported in : AIR1965Mad424; 56ITR569(Mad)
..... any such partner who is deceased, and shall for any year of assessment upto and including the assessment for the year ending on 31st day of march 1953, be made before the 28th february 1953, and for any year of assessment subsequent thereto be made......... (a) where the firm is not registered under the indian partnership act, 1932, or where the deed of partnership is not ..... solely by the terms of the statute and it would be repugnant to the character of such other laws. the statute must be construed as exhaustive in regard to the conditions under which it can be claimed'.(7) in that case, the question arose whether the application for the registration of partnership should be signed by the partner himself ..... of tax chargeable will not be on the higher scale provided for incomes on the higher levels, individual partner is chargeable. thus registration confers on the partners a benefit to which they would not have been entitled but for s. 26-a, and such a right being a creature of the statute, can be claimed only in accordance who seeks relief under s ..... . 26-a, must bring himself directly within its terms before he can claim the benefit of it. in other words, the right is regulated .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-01-1964
Reported in : AIR1965SC1411; 56ITR219(SC); 2SCR310
..... the indian partnership act, 1932 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. a firm is strictly not a person : it is an association of persons, and an agreement by which a firm purports to enters into a partnership with an individual or another firm merely makes the partners ..... of that firm individually partners of the larger partnership. the problem posed by such a partnership agreement is under the general law academic, but the right to registration under section 26a being conditional upon specification of the individual shares of the ..... partners, a deed of partnership between a firm and an individual, which specifies the collective share of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-11-1964
Reported in : AIR1965Mad508
..... the writ petitioners as managing partners. we have a fresh lease deed, with different conditions of lease; for instance, the rent is to be enhanced to rs. 3500 per mensem and there are other conditions.(5) the firm itself had been registered as a partnership under s. 69 of the indian partnership act. it is claimed for ..... in reality, the old establishment has come to an end, and there is a new establishment, this establishment is entitled to infancy protection in its own right, even it happens by coincidence to have employed a large part of the personnel of the previous establishment. actually, if the writ petitioners are entitled to ..... , namely 'organised body of men maintained for a purpose'. once we have this definition in perspective, and also keep in mind the principle that the act really applies to the factory of establishment or industrial organisation, whichever it might be termed, and not to changes tin ownership, or to the history of ..... that closure was never in dispute. it was not closed down with a view to escaping any liability which the application of the employees' provident funds act might impose.' in effect, the learned judge quashed the orders of the regional provident fund commissioner declining to give infancy protection to what was virtually a ..... of the law, in this respect, are to be checked or avoided, it may be necessary to consider suitable legislative amendment of section 16, in order to effect that purpose. parties will bear their own costs.(16) petition allowed. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-09-1964
Reported in : AIR1965P& H133
..... as relevant for our present purpose are briefly stated as follows: the petitioner partnership firm of amristar registered under the indian partnership act, claims to be a registered dealer under the central sales tax act no. 74 of 1956 (herinafter called the central act). for the year 1957-58 ending 31st march, 1958, the firm filed ..... in time, it was within the jurisdiction of the assessing authority to frame assessment under s 9(3) of the central act read with section 11(3) of the punjab act on the basis of the returns, furnished by the dealer. the notice issues on 13-10-1961 has also been pleaded ..... judgment whenever he like without any limitation in regard to time. (11) this broad contention clearly overlooks the important word in sections 11(4) of the punjab act which expressly fixed a period of return furnished by the registered dealer within which the assessing authority has to proceed to assess to ..... the day of-------------------is correct and complete, and it appears to me to be necessary to make an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 11 of the punjab general sales tax act, 1948, in respect of the above mentioned period. i am satisfied on information which has come into my possession ..... the assessing authority till the receipt of what he describes to be a notice dated 17-10-1961. (8) the question which falls for determination relates to the scope and effect of s. 11 of the punjab act. this section, so far as material for our purpose, reads as follows: '11. assessment of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-01-1964
Reported in : AIR1965SC139; 7SCR564
..... an entirely new case at this stage. apart from that, s. 22 of the indian partnership act, 1932, clearly provides that in order to bind a firm by an act or an instrument executed by a partner on behalf of the firm, the act should be done or the instrument should be executed in the name of the firm, ..... circumstances of each particular case. in that case also, it was found that the liability arose upon a contract entered into by one of the partners in connection with the partnership business. this case is, therefore, similar to the one just referred to above. the third case relied upon is pandiri veeranna v. grandi ..... respondent 4 & 5, who are father and son, admitted the appellant's contention that the lease was obtained by respondent no. 4 on behalf of the partnership firm, but their contention was that they surrendered their lease-hold interest to the appellant on november 1, 1950, which was accepted by him, and that he ..... a suit instituted by the appellant against the respondents for the recovery of a sum of rs. 57,000/-. 2. the appellant holds permanent lease-hold rights over a colliery called the jealgora govindpur colliery and had worked the colliery himself for some time. on january 31, 1949, he granted a sub-lease ..... the coal extracted by them from the colliery, as also rs. 1,355/8/3 on account of a loan taken by them from him on february 17, 1949. the total claim was tentatively valued by him at rs. 57,000/-. he jointed respondents 1, 2 and 5 as defendants to the suit .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-07-1964
Reported in : AIR1967Mad201
..... of the firm under section 44 of the partnership act on the ground that the business of the firm cannot be carried on save at a loss. in other words, the plaintiff has asked for the relief of dissolution invoking the court's special jurisdiction and protection on equitable grounds despite the terms by which the rights and obligations of partners may have been regulated ..... fraud and unfair conduct alleged against the defendants, the plaintiff is also seeking dissolution under s. 44 clauses (f) and (g) of the partnership act of 1932, corresponding to s. 254 of the indian contract act and s. 35 of the english partnership act.learned counsel for the respondent(plaintiff in the suit) relied upon the judgment of the privy council in rehmatunnissa begum v. price, ilr ..... 42 bom 380: air 1917 pc 116 and venkataswami v. venkataswami : air1954mad9 , and contended that even though the terms of the partnership provide for ..... judgment in england is olover v. hillier, 1959-2 all er 220. it was held that the dissolution of a partnership which involves the exercise of a judicial discretion under s. 35(f) corresponding to s. 44 of the indian act) and which may involve the appointment of a receiver and manager, is again a matter which perhaps is more conveniently left .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-04-1964
Reported in : AIR1965SC1703; 55ITR651(SC); 2SCR13
..... person can be a partner of a firm. under section 26b of the act, 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' have the same meanings respectively as in the indian partnership act, 1932 (ix of 1932) : provide that the expression 'partner' includes any person who being a minor has been admitted to the benefits of partnership. under section 4 of the indian partnership. under section 4 of the indian partnership act, 'partnership' is the relation between ..... ; his liability to third parties for the acts of the partnership is co-equal with that of the other partners; the other partners have no concern with the real owner; they ..... also enter into a partnership with others. 17. if so, what is the principal of law which prohibits the benamidar of a partner from being also a partner along with the said partner with others qua the other partners, he has separate and real existence; he is governed by the terms of the partnership deed; his rights and liabilities are governed ..... by the terms of the contract and by the provisions of the partnership act .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-19-1964
Reported in : 57ITR765(All)
..... appeal has been filed by m/s. kanodia brothers, a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, against the decision of a learned single judge (manchanda j.) dated april 3, 1963, dismissing writ petition no. 86 of 1963 filed by the appellant. the appellant is a partnership of which the following are members in four-anna share each ..... that a writ of prohibition cannot issue in a case like this.for the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that not only the learned single judge was right in dismissing the writ petition on preliminary grounds but on merits also no case for interference has been made out before us.the special appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs ..... appellant may be liable to pay tax by virtue of their being persons forming and an association or being partners in the factory but that would not make them parties to proceedings started by means of the notice under section 34/44 of the act. a distinction had got to be drawn between the unit which is liable to be assessed and the ..... . income-tax officer.'on receipt of the notice mentioned above the appellant filed an objection before the income-tax officer. the proceedings dragged on for some time and on january 17, 1961, writ petition no. 182 of 1961 was moved in this court on behalf of the appellants. in that petition a number of reliefs were claimed. when the matter came .....Tag this Judgment!