Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act 1932 section 17 rights and duties of partners Year: 1977 Page 1 of about 7 results (0.114 seconds)

Mar 31 1977 (HC)

Nagaland Liquor Stores Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Mar-31-1977

..... 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!

Mar 31 1977 (HC)

Nagaland Liquor Stores Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Assam.

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Mar-31-1977

..... 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 cl. 9 of the partnership deed militated against the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932, but did not ..... third or fourth party. the managing partner alone shall be competent to operate on ..... and privileges and rights referred in cl. 8 as extracted above. it is imported that k. singh was not to have the duties of a partner.it is also important that for the work he did not separate remunerations had been provided. by reason of the younger brother working in the place of the managing partner (no. 1 party to the partnership deed) the ..... convenient not only to read cls. 8 and 9 of the partnership deed but also notice its other provisions :"(8) duties of the managing partner : the managing partner shall be exclusively responsible for carrying out the business of the partnership and for taking all necessary decisions relating to the business of this partnership and shall not be restricted in any manner by the second or .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 24 1977 (HC)

Nandlal Sohanlal, Jullundur Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Patial ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-24-1977

Reported in : AIR1977P& H320; [1977]110ITR170(P& H)

..... following terms:-- '2. definitions.-- in this act, unless the context otherwise requires,-- xxx (23) 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the indian partnership act, 1932 (ix of 1932); but the expression 'partner' shall also include any person, who, being a minor, has been admitted to the benefits of partnership.' 35. now a reference to section 5 of the indian partnership act would show that the afore-said three ..... the dissolution of the firm as envisaged by the provisions of the indian partnership act was sought to be avoided and it was perhaps rightly considered unnecessary to provide for the definition of the term 'dissolution of a firm' in the act, the language employed in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of section 187 is so wide that it does not admit of any ..... go to that assessee, but this is not the same thing as the saying that a taxing provision should not receive a reasonable construction.' 58. in every case it is duty of the judge to consider which is the more reasonable view and accept that which is more reasonable. as i said it is only where a judge finds that both ..... reconstituted firm of which at least one of the old partners continues to be a partner of the new firm, the firm will be treated as a continuing entity in the eye of law, 17. it is no doubt true that the term 'dissolution of a firm' has not been defined in the act but that does not make any difference because the legislature .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 22 1977 (HC)

Md. Khalil Rahaman Vs. Bhagabati Charan Roy

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-22-1977

Reported in : AIR1978Cal321

..... not registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. the plaintiff did not pray for dissolution of the partnership in question. section 69(1) of the indian partnership act, 1932 provides that in case of an unregistered partnership '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 person alleged to be or have been a partner ..... in the firm ................' the lower appellatecourt held that the suit in question for accounts being valued at rs. 100/-, the suit was saved by sub-section (4) (b) of section 69 of the indian partnership act, in my view, the lower appellate court clearly erred in law in holding ..... decrees of the trial court and the lower appellate court and dismiss the suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent only on the ground that the same was barred under section 69(1) of the indian partnership act. this decision will not preclude either of the parties from filing a fresh suit for appropriate reliefs.11. each party will bear his own costs throughout.

Tag this Judgment!

May 13 1977 (HC)

Rolls Print and Company (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. B.M. Singh and Son

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : May-13-1977

Reported in : AIR1977Cal303

..... by sub-section (3-a) of section 13 of the west bengal premises tenancy act, the fact is that the plaintiff ..... can be no doubt that there has been legal registration of the partnership and that there was no occasion for any minor being admitted as partner. we find no ground to hold that the presentcase 19 hit by section 69 of the indian partnership act 15. with regard to the question whether the suit is barred ..... same and hence the present suit was filed.3. the defendant filed a written statement. it was alleged that the suit was hit by section 69 of the indian partnership act, that the notice to quit was illegal, insufficient and void, that the plaintiff did not require the suit premises for building or rebuilding ..... suit property and runs manufacturing business. the defendant has failed to discharge the onus lying upon it to prove that the tenancy was for manufacturing purposes.17. coming to the question whether the company is doing any manufacturing business, mr. chakraborty for the respondent has urged in support of the decree ..... in the lok sabha on 28-1-1976. the bill with some amendments was passed on 5-2-1976 and the president gave his assent on 17-2-1976. this objection was not taken in the additional written statement filed before this court. this point has been taken up just before the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 1977 (SC)

Vasantrao Alias Baburao and anr. Vs. Shyamrao and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-28-1977

Reported in : AIR1977SC2021; [1977]47CompCas666(SC); (1977)4SCC9; [1978]1SCR218; 1977(9)LC499(SC)

..... be stated that under sub-section (3) no unregistered company can be wound up under this act voluntarily or subject to the supervision of the court and can only wound up by the court. admittedly this is not a case of volume winding up or winding up subject to the supervision of the chapter vi of the indian partnership act, 1932 also contains persons for the ..... dissolution of a firm and its winding up on dissolution the argument for the appellants is that the special provisions of x of the companies act exclude the operation of the general lav tained in the partnership act in the matter of winding up of having more than ..... not relevant for the present purpose. it is clear that provisions for winding up of the affairs of a firm which vi of the indian partnership act contains besides provision-, dissolution of partnership are left untouched by section 59 companies a the cases cited in support of the respective contentions of the parties are not really on the point under consideration except the on of ..... a.c. gupta, j.1. the two appellants and the six respondents were partners of a firm called 'shivraj fine art litho works.' the appellants as plaintiffs instituted civil suit no. 9 off 1974 in the court of the senior civil judge, nagpur, for dissolution of the partnership and accounts. the reliefs asked for included a declaration that the firm stood dissolved on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 04 1977 (HC)

Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers and anr. Vs. Wealth-tax Officer, C-ward and ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Oct-04-1977

Reported in : [1979]116ITR646(All)

..... enunciation of the legal position, it is clear that though a partner has no exclusive right over any of the partnership properties, he has an interest in them. that such interest is transferable is evident from section 29 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the relevant portions of which read :'29. (1) a transfer by a partner of his interest in the firm.....entitles the transferee only to receive ..... , for the purpose of arriving at the net wealth of a partner he has to be treated as ..... individual--... (b) where the assessee is a partner in a firm.....the value of hisinterest in the firm.....determined in the prescribed manner.' 16. thus, we are unable to accept the contention of shri khare that the interest of a partner in a partnership firm, cannot be regarded as a part of his net wealth.17. as pointed out in cwt v. mela ram ..... : [1972]84itr323(delhi) , under the act there are only two units of assessment, an individual and a huf. partnership firm as such is not a unit of assessment and, therefore .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 20 1977 (HC)

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Abdul Kareem and Company

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-20-1977

Reported in : [1979]117ITR233(Mad)

..... the partners and as regards withdrawals to be made. it is unnecessary to refer to those terms of the deed. it may, however, be mentioned that under clause 17 of the partnership deed, the provisions of the indian partnership act would apply to this partnership, except in regard to matters provided otherwise in the deed.4. this firm was registered under section 26a of the indian i.t. act, 1922 ..... was right in holding that the release deed dated march 4, 1963, and the original partnership deed dated february 28, 1958, constitute instrument of partnership evidencing the existence of partnership by the two continuing partners with their respective shares and in directing to grant registration to the firm on that basis ?(2) whether the appellate tribunal was justified in holding that there was compliance with section ..... answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee with reference to the period up to march 3, 1963. the third question is answered as follows: the tribunal was right in law in granting registration for the firm for the assessment year 1963-64, but could only do so up to the period march 3, 1963, and the firm cannot .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 10 1977 (HC)

The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, (Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad) ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-10-1977

Reported in : [1977]110ITR468(AP)

..... indian partnership act, 1932. section 4 provides that 'partnership' is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any or them acting for all persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any or them acting for all persons who have entered into partnership with one another are called 'individually 'partners ..... the world around us independently of man, but intangible things created in one way or another by man for his purposes as a social animal. notions and concepts like rights and duties, juristic acts, remedial rights, property, or possession, although they may be concerned with tangible things in one way or another, are not themselves tangible things but represent or stand for or serve ..... commissioner. the contention of the assessee was accepted by the assistant commissioner observing that, in the absence of any provision in the partnership deed to continue the firm even after the death of a partner, the firm stood dissolved on august 17, 1968 when srinivasalu died and the firm, which came into existence on august 18, 1968 was a new firm. the matter ..... ), therefore, cannot be sustained.38. in view of our conclusion as above, it necessarily follows that, in r. c. no. 22/75, because of the death of srinivasulu on august, 17, 1968, the old firm was dissolved and there was succession to that firm by another firm within the meaning of s. 188 when under a new agreement seven of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 10 1977 (HC)

M.C. Manickam Vs. V.Sm. Sivalingam Chettiar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-10-1977

Reported in : AIR1977Mad324

..... accounts, the relevant date for determining the exchange rate s the date of winding up of the firm as contemplated in s. 46 of the indian partnership act. it is stated that only when the commissioner determines the rights of parties winding up terminated and therefore that is the relevant date. in this connection, certain observations of this court in the case referred to ..... is impossible to accept any date earlier than 6th december, 1920, because the winding up was not completed, and not until after the partnership assets are all realised, and converted into money can the share of a partner be settled: vide lindley p. 427.'i am quite clear that the winding up referred to in the above passage is not the one ..... to those in the reported case. here also it is the admitted fact that the business of the partnership firm had been closed in 1948 and by that time all the assets had been realised. in the accounts the amounts due to the respective partners had also been struck. the case of the second defendant had been that there had been a ..... final settlement of account even in 1948 and that therefore the suit for dissolution of partnership and taking of accounts did not lie. this case of the second defendant was .....

Tag this Judgment!


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