Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act 1932 section 17 rights and duties of partners Year: 2000 Page 1 of about 16 results (0.124 seconds)

Apr 11 2000 (HC)

Mahendra Kumar Poddar Vs. Bansal Builders and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-11-2000

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!

Jul 10 2000 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. George Oommen and Co.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jul-10-2000

Reported in : (2000)163CTR(Ker)225; [2001]112TAXMAN455(Ker)

..... a business' is a must for the existence of a firm. as per explanation (i) to section 6 of the indian partnership act, sharing of profits or gross returns arising from property by persons holding a joint or common interest in that property does not make such persons partners. thus, the application for registration for the assessment year 1989-90 was dismissed. by annexure b2 ..... is it argued that the firm as constituted was granted registration at any point of time earlier. however, the second question referred to is as to whether the tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is entitled to renewal of registration. hence, we have to take it that the question for the first year, i.e., 1989-90 is regarding ..... in holding that the assessee is entitled to renewal of registration ?'2. facts of these cases are as follows: the assessee in these cases is george oommen & co., kottayam. for the assessment year 1989-90, the assessee filed an application for registration in form no. 11 on 30-3-1989 along with a copy of the partnership deed dated ..... tax act, are as follows :'1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, investing money and earning interest therefrom and letting out of building and earning rental income therefrom would constitute an activity of business carried on by the assessee-firm ?2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal is right .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 2000 (HC)

M/S. S.G. TIn Printers Private Ltd. Vs. R.P.F. Commissioner and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-20-2000

Reported in : (2000)3CALLT364(HC),[2001(88)FLR844],(2001)ILLJ628Cal

..... question which, therefore, arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether such partners who were getting salaries would be employees within the meaning of section 2(9) of the said act, section t3(a) of the indian partnership act, 1932, inter alia, provides that subject to contract between the partners, a partner is not entitled to receive remuneration for taking part in the conduct of the ..... may mutually be agreed upon. this principle proceeds on the basis that in terms of the deed of partnership as also under the provisions of the indian partnership act, each partner has a duty to attend to the partnership business. this aspect of the matter albeit in a different context has been considered by the appex court in v.d. dhanwatey, reported in : [1968]68itr385( ..... jurisdiction of the authority to pass an order which is impugned before the writ court or there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice and/or fundamental rights of the petitioner. this aspect of the matter has been considered by the apex courtin whirlpool corporation v. registrar of trade marks, bombay & ors., reported in : air1999sc22 in ..... being paid salary. a question arose as to whether the managing director of the company would be employee within the meaning of section 2(17) of the employees' state insurance act vis-a-vis section 2(9) of the said act. the apex court upon taking into consideration various decisions, inter alia, held that a managing director of a company having limited liability .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 10 2000 (TRI)

Smt. Aruna A. Brat Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Decided on : Aug-10-2000

Reported in : (2002)75TTJ(Pune.)675

..... in joint names. reference can b made to the provisions of section 6 of indian partnership act, 1932 which are set out as under : in determining whether a group of persons is or is not a firm, or whether a person is or is not a partner in a firm, regard shall be had to the real relation ..... of the above finding, the case of assessee has no legs to stand since it is entirely built up on the plea that right from the beginning there exited a partnership between shri ashok bhat and shri c.v. shah and later on between the assessee and shri c.v. shah. still i would ..... their interest in the aforesaid land. it is also interesting to know that value of such right was not brought as their capital in the partnership firm on 15-12-1993. so such right did not became the asset of the partnership firm. therefore, the question of transferring the same through so-called arrangement was a mockery ..... opinion, the agreement dated 20-11-1993, was brought on the record only to justify their story that partnership existed right from the inception.in view of the above discussion, it is held that there was no partnership in existence either between shri ashok v. bhat and shri c.v. shah or between the assessee ..... , but certain factual observations made by him, in my view, are not borne out from the record. in order to appreciate the controversy in the right perspective, it would be necessary to ascertain the exact facts available from the record. the tribunal being the last fact-finding authority is bound to record .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 14 2000 (HC)

Satish Aggarwal and Another Vs. Subhash Chand Aggarwal and Others

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jul-14-2000

Reported in : 2000VAD(Delhi)889; 2000(3)ARBLR142(Delhi)

..... for the petitioners has relied upon the following provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 in support of his plea for appointment of a receiver: (1) section 42(c) which postulates the dissolution of a partnership by the death of a partner; (2) section 46 which prescribes the right of partners to have business wound up after dissolution; (3) section 48 which provides for the mode of settlement of accounts between ..... respondents. this notice also proposed the name of shri r.n. sawhney, the income-tax adviser of the erstwhile firm as an arbitrator. on 17.3.1998, the present petition under section 9 of the arbitration & conciliation act, 1996 was filed by the petitioner for appointment of a receiver and for grant of an injunction restraining the respondents 1 & 2 from carrying on ..... shri prakash chand, father of the petitioners, withdrew cash to the tune of rs. 77.92 lacs from the firm in addition to the further sum amounting to rs. 18.17 lacs. this caused heavy imbalance in the firm's funds. it was also stated that on 11.9.1997 the firm was reconstituted after the death of shri prakash chand ..... entitled to such profits of the profits made since the erstwhile partner ceased to be a partner as may be attributable to the use of his share of the property of the firm. 17. i am satisfied that the present case is not a case where the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners could apply and a receiver could .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 10 2000 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. George Oommen and Co.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jul-10-2000

Reported in : [2001]247ITR574(Ker)

..... a business' is a must for the existence of a firm. as per explanation (i) to section 6 of the indian partnership act, sharing of profits or gross returns arising from property by persons holding a joint or common interest in that property does not make such persons partners. thus, the application for registration for the assessment year 1989-90 was dismissed. by annex-ure ..... it argued that the firm as constituted was granted registration at any point of time earlier. however, the second question referred to is as to whether the appellate tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is entitled to renewal of registration. hence, we have to take it that the question for the first year, i.e., 1989-90, is regarding ..... holding that the assessee is entitled to renewal of registration ?'2. the facts of these cases are as follows : the assessee in these cases is george oommen and co., kottayam. for the assessment year 1989-90, the assessee filed an application for registration in form no. 11 on march 30, 1989, along with a copy of the partnership deed ..... -tax act, 1961, are as follows :'(1) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, investing money and earning interest therefrom and letting out of building and earning rental income therefrom would constitute an activity of business carried on by the assessee-firm ?(2) whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal is right in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 27 2000 (HC)

Gouranga Lal Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Nov-27-2000

Reported in : [2001]247ITR737(Cal)

..... has been observed by the supreme court that under the indian partnership act, 1932, a partnership firm registered thereunder is neither a person nor a legal entity. it is merely a collective name for the individual members of the partnership firm. a firm as such cannot be a partner in another firm though its partners may be partners in the other firm in their individual capacity.11. in this ..... the first place i observe that the aforesaid addressee of the impugned notice cannot be a body of individuals. it is a combination at the highest, of two partnership firms. under the definition of section 2(31), sub-clause (v), in order to determine association of persons or body of individuals the persons and/or individuals must be a juristic legal entity ..... in his lordship's judgment in w.p. no. 5035 of 1987 (gouranga lal chatterjee v. ito) that the aforesaid combination of the two partnership firms is not 'person' within the definition of section 2(31)(v) of the income-tax act, 1961. with respect i do not find any decision on this issue by justice kundu in his lordship's judgment ; as ..... rightly said by mr. som. justice ms. pal has not decided this issue either.10. so, it is incumbent upon me to decide this issue as i have been called upon. two partnership .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 2000 (HC)

Reddi Suryakantam (Died) and Another Vs. Yerra Veeraswami Naidu

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-08-2000

Reported in : 2000(3)ALD559

..... court held:'under the indian partnership act, 1932, the partnership firm registered thereunder is neither a person nor a legal entity, it is merely a collective name for the individual members of the partnership'.17. in narayan bhimji vadangale v. hukumchand chunilal thole : air1992sc503 , the supreme court observed:'a firm is a name given compendiously to a group of people who comprise its partners, and those people have ..... one, the defendant who had taxable income during the relevant assessment years as well cannot seek any benefit or relief under the said act in view of the definition as contained in section 2(7) of the income tax act. the decision relied on earlier in n. ranga reddy's case (supra) cannot beof any assistance to the defendant herein as the question ..... and the definition of 'person' contained therein, held:'so far as the concept of the individual is concerned, (he act which relates to agrarian reform, deals with the individual's rights whether he is a member of the family unit or not. for the purpose of imposing the ceiling, the legislature thought fit to adopt different devices for fixing the ceiling ..... limit with regard to the lands held by the various persons as defined in the act. it is competent for the legislature to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 2000 (HC)

Ramesh Vithalrao and anr. Vs. Dixit and Apte Engineers and Constructio ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-20-2000

Reported in : 2000(3)ALLMR698; (2002)1BOMLR477; 2002(1)MhLj239

..... . there is no force in the above contention. a firm, it is well known, is a compendious name of the partners constituting the firm. according to section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1982. persons who have entered into partnership with one another are called individually partners and collectively a firm. it would, therefore, follow that when firm gokal chand jagan nath took the premises in dispute ..... decision and, therefore, ramesh now cannot file any civil revision application against the decision given by the learned district judge.14. there is substance in this argument. it was all right that while filing petition before the learned rent controller, ushabai was shown guardian and next friend of ramesh, but when ramesh had become major, it was necessary for him to ..... the tenant for eviction of the tenant and if the tenant is not there as a party to the proceedings, then it is difficult to pass any decree for eviction.17. the third ground on which the possession was claimed by the petitioner, is that the respondents had obtained alternative suitable accommodation. it was contended that the premises in pushpanagari area .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 2000 (HC)

S. Ashok Kumar Vs. Mrs. Jasoda Bai and Another

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-04-2000

Reported in : 2000(4)CTC24

..... 1999 under o.7, rule 11 (d) of c.p.c. for rejecting the plaint as it was barred by law in view of the provisions of sec.69 of the indian partnership act (herein after referred to as 'the act'). in the affidavit filed in support of this application, the petitioner stated that there is no whisper in the plaint as to whether the ..... the plaintiff firm was not registered. the supreme court construing the words 'arising from a contract' in sec.69(2) of the act held,'the purpose behind sec.69(2) of the act held,was to impose a disability on the unregistered firm or its partners to enforce rights arising out of con-tracts entered into by the plaintiff firm -with third party defendant in the ..... agreement was entered into by the petitioner with thepartnership firm or with the four individuals in their personal capacity. the relevant recital in the partnership agreement clause 13 also states that the tenancy right will belong to all the partners in equal proportion. the amounts have been paid by the respondents towards good will and advance to the petitioner on 25.8.1995 ..... which is four months prior to the partnership agreement. unless, the petitioner is able to show during the trial that this is a suit to enforce .....

Tag this Judgment!


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