Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act 1932 section 17 rights and duties of partners Year: 1996 Page 1 of about 16 results (0.192 seconds)

Jan 30 1996 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shankar Cottons

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-30-1996

Reported in : (1997)137CTR(Mad)583; [1996]222ITR445(Mad)

..... per the provisions of s. 30 of the indian partnership act, 1932. sec. 6 of the indian partnership act, 1932, determines the mode of existence of the partnership. expln. 2 to s. 6 of the indian partnership act states, who are all the persons who can receive a share in the profit of the partnership business without making them as partners. sec. 30 of the indian partnership act states that a person who is a minor according to the ..... partnership deed and form no. 11 have not been signed either by the guardian of miss gita, or by miss gita herself even though she is a ..... s. 256(2) of the it act, 1961 (in short, 'the act'), the tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court : '1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that the admission of one miss a. gita, major, to the benefits of partnership would not make the partnership as 'illegal' or 'invalid ..... ' and, hence, the assessee's claim for registration of the firm cannot be denied by the ito and 2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in law in overlooking the fact that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 1996 (HC)

J.D. Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : May-31-1996

..... the benefits of the partnership with such charges of profit with rights and liabilities as per section 30 of the indian partnership act, 1932. it could not be said that the minor was made liable for the losses. the income-tax officer disagreed with the submission of the assessee. he was of the view that the deed must specify the share of each partner in the profits and ..... been provided in this instrument with all the rights and liabilities as per section 30 of the indian partnership act. in clause (5) of the deed of partnership it has been recited that the profits and losses of the partnership business shall be divided and borne by the parties in equal proportions after adjustment of all expenses of the partnership business.17. therefore, it is evident that the intention ..... of the parties was to admit khanin deka to the benefits of the firm with the rights and liabilities a per section 30 of the partnership act. in the said clause, it is abundantly made clear that the minor was admitted .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 1996 (HC)

Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hassan Chand and Sons

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-22-1996

Reported in : [1997]224ITR244(Raj)

..... the estate of the deceased shri noor mohd. had accepted the terms by appending his signature to the partnership deed. this takes us to examine the scope, effect and applicability of the provisions of section 37 of the indian partnership act, 1932, to the present case : '37. right of outgoing partner in certain cases to share subsequent profits. -- where any member of a firm has died or otherwise ..... ceased to be a partner, and the surviving or continuing partners carry on the business of the firm with the property of the ..... it for its opinion for the two years under consideration.16. we have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully gone through the material brought on record.17. we propose to answer the referred questions in the following manner :(1) assessment year 1960-61 ; for this year, the tribunal has referred three questions as reproduced above. we find ..... and 187 to 189 of the act of 1961. in this context, it may be useful to refer to circular no. 43(xv)-(ii) of 1954, dated december 17, 1954, and no. 34(25)-(9) of 1955, dated august 20, 1955, which, in substance, enjoined upon the income-tax officers not to reject an application for renewal of registration .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 1996 (HC)

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hassan Chand and Sons.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-22-1996

Reported in : (1996)133CTR(Raj)284

..... ss. 239 to 266 of the indian contract act, 1872 which were replaced by the present indian partnership act, 1932. by giving a place to this section in the present partnership act a well recognised principle of partnership law embodied in analogous s. 42 of the (u. k.) partnership act, 1890 and which principle is that if, after the dissolution of a partnership firm, a partner has used assets or profits which are ..... otherwise ceased to be a partner, and the surviving or continuing partners carry on the business of the firm with the property of the firm ..... estate of the deceased shri noor mohd. had accepted the terms by appending his signatures to the partnership deed. this takes us to examine the scope, effect and applicability of the provisions of s. 37 of the indian partnership act, 1932 to the present case.'37. right of outgoing partner in certain cases to share subsequent profits - where any member of a firm has died or ..... was filed within the time allowed.question no. 3 : the tribunal was right in holding that the partnership was valid.asst. yr. 1961-62.the tribunal was right in holding that the payment made to shri abdul razaq in his capacity as guardian of the estate of deceased partner shri noor mohd., was a charge on the profits of the firm.let .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 14 1996 (HC)

Canara Bank and Another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-14-1996

Reported in : [1998]91CompCas385(Mad)

..... controverted by and on behalf of the defendant in any mode or to any extent by raising such adequate suggestions or plea. even so, section 69 of the indian partnership act, cannot be made applicable to the facts of the instant case for the very reasoning that insurance policy under exhibits 'p-2' and ' ..... the firm from the registrar of firms dated march 15, 1984. thus, on a careful scrutiny of the oral evidence given by pw-2, the partner of the second plaintiff, it is seen that his evidence is trustworthy, quit natural in its trend, convincing and as such, i am satisfied to ..... even for a material misrepresentation which had no bearing on the risk. similarly, mere non-disclosure of some immaterial facts would not per se give right to rescission. in other words a misrepresentation would not ipso facto be a ground available to an aggrieved party to avoid the contract unless it ..... circumstances at any point of time and that as such, there was non-disclosure and misrepresentation of material facts, for which the plaintiffs had a duty to make a frank, voluntary and full disclosure of material facts and circumstances in determining whether the risk intended to be covered was to be ..... shore. 16. subject to institute fishing vessel clauses. deductible 33-1/3 of the assessed loss or rs. 1,000 each claim, whichever is higher. 17. subject to agreed bank clause attached. 18. subject to conditions and warranties as per schedule attached hereto. 19. subject to premium instalment clause attached. 20. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 1996 (TRI)

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Coal Ash Distributors

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad

Decided on : Jan-29-1996

Reported in : (1996)58ITD58(Ahd.)

..... purpose of section 25 of the indian contract act there should be the consideration for every contract. insofar as partnership firms are concerned, every partner is required to put in his part of consideration in the form of capital, labour or skill or more than one of these in order that he entitles himself to the right to share the profits from ..... it is involved in the formation and functioning of a partnership firm. thus, by reason of section - 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932 a partnership firm comes into being when two or more persons agree to share.... and so on. thus, agreement for purposes of section - 4 of the indian partnership act should also be as laid down under the indian contract act. for an agreement or contract to be valid for ..... supreme court decision in 60 itr 95. (16) the latest decision is a full bench decision of andhra pradesh high court in cit v. b. r. construction 202 itr 222. (17) the decision of larger bench to prevail - in cit v. sriram agrawal 161 itr 302 (pat.), the court observed as follows :- "the observations in state bank of travancore v. cit ..... must prove two things : (i) that a partner is a benamidar of any person other than partner; and (ii) any of the other partners knew or had reason to believe that so and so apparent partner was such benamidar. on the above two conditions being fulfilled, the partner who had such knowledge or reason to believe has a duty to communicate such knowledge or belief to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 21 1996 (HC)

New Bharat Chemical Industry Vs. Om Parkash and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-21-1996

Reported in : (1997)117PLR357

..... which could show that the plaintiff-firm has been registered and tulsi dass jaitwani was one of its registered partners. clause (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, mandates that no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of a firm against ..... any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the registrar of firms as partners ..... it is then averred in this application that the name of plaintiff tulsi dass jaitwani was also shown in the list of partners in form-a maintained under section 59 of the indian partnership act, 1932 and was issued form-a vide no. 638. a. copy of form-a is appended with the application as annexure a ..... for permission to produce form-c in original issued under rule 9 by the registrar of firms, punjab and the certified copy of partnership deed dated 27.8.1979.17. it is averred in this application that the applicant/appellant has been able to find out the original form-c under rule ..... 9 issued by the registrar of firms, punjab and is, therefore, annexing form-c in original with the present application. however, the original partnership deed was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 1996 (HC)

Harishankar Singhania and ors. Vs. Dr. Gaur Hari Singhania and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-13-1996

Reported in : 1996(4)BomCR67; (1996)98BOMLR112

..... of addanki narayanappa v. bhaskara krishnappa, reported in : [1966]3scr400 wherein while deciding the nature of interest of partner in partnership property during subsistence of partnership and after its dissolution in the light of sections 14, 15, 29, 32, 37, 38 and 48 of the indian partnership act, 1932 it has been held that whatever may be the character of the property which is brought in by the ..... of the indian partnership act are subject to agreement by the partners and in the instant case, the agreement made provision for distribution of immoveable properties belonging to the erstwhile partnership firm in species.7. mr. shah, learned counsel appearing for defendants 10, 13, 14-a to 14-d, 15 to 17, has supported mr. doctor and submitted that the leave obtained by the plaintiffs under ..... of plaint, or by summons or by notice. but whether the proceeding is intended to terminate in a final adjudication of the rights by a decree in that proceeding. in the case of application under section 20 of the act, all that the court is required to do is to pass an order filing the agreement and making an order of reference. the ..... is liable to be dismissed. mr. madon further submitted that since defendants 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 reside and original defendant no. 14 resided at bombay, this court has the jurisdiction and leave under clause xii has been rightly obtained. while submitting that none of the judgments relied upon by mr. doctor has applicability to the facts of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 15 1996 (HC)

R. K. JaIn and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-15-1996

Reported in : (1996)134CTR(P& H)17

..... jointly with all other partners and also severally for all acts of the firm done while he was partner. the liability of a partner is unlimited so far as he continues to be a partner of the partnership concern. in the background of the provisions ..... of the indian partnership act. this contract between the partners is primarily subject to the provisions of that act i.e. to say that other statutory provisions of the indian partnership act shall take precedence and will prevail over the contract between the parties which they enter into for the purpose of running business of partnership concern and rights and duties of respective partner. sec. 25 of the indian partnership act provides that every partner is liable ..... the complaint were not disclosed as it did not hold them responsible for the conduct of the business of the company as contemplated in s. 7/16/17 of the prevention of food adulteration act. the supreme court held as under :'in the instant case, a clear averment has been made regarding the active role played by the respondents and the extent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 19 1996 (HC)

SaifuddIn and Co. Vs. Bhanu Loha Shilpa (P) Ltd.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-19-1996

Reported in : ILR1996KAR2500; 1996(3)KarLJ219

..... of sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act reads as follows :'69(2). no suits to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the register of firms as partners in the ..... suit of the petitioner firm holding that the suit in question is not in accordance with section 69(2) of the indian partnership act; in the result, i hold that it is not just and proper for the court below to dismiss the suit of the petitioner firm.17. under the circumstances, it is unnecessary for me to consider the i.a, filed by the ..... contended that they were not liable to pay the suit claim to the petitioner and further contended that the suit filed by the petitioner was barred under section 60 (probably it meant section 69) of indian partnership act, 1932.6. based on the above contentions, the court below was pleased to set out the following points for its consideration.(1) whether the plaintiff proved that the ..... severaldemands and therefore the petitioner was forced to issue a legal notice at the first instance on 13.3.90. the respondent did reply to the said legal notice on 17.3.90. petitioner had also issued a rejoinder to the said reply notice on 21.3.90. the petitioner claimed interest at 18% p.a. as per trade and usage .....

Tag this Judgment!


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