Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act 1932 section 36 rights of outgoing partner to carry on competing business Page 1 of about 50 results (0.214 seconds)

Dec 09 1969 (HC)

Hukmi Chand Vs. the Jaipur Ice and Oil Mills Co. and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1969WLN570

..... business, but, subject to contract to the contrary, he may not.(a) use the firm name,(b) represent ..... as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business there in : provided that such limits appear to the court reasonable, regard being has to the nature of the business.12. the relevant section in the indian partnership act 1932 are these:'section' 36. rights of outgoing partner to carry on competing business. - (1)an outgoing partner may carry on a business competing with that of the firm and he may advertise such ..... himself as carrying on the business of the firm, or(c) solicit the custom of persons who were dealing with the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 18 2006 (HC)

Shri Gagandeep Singh S/O Shri Deshpal Singh Vs. Shri B.R. Arya,

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 129(2006)DLT544

..... on competing business. - (1) an outgoing partner may carry on a business competing with that of the firm and he may advertise such ..... business, but, subject to contract to the contrary, he may not, -(a) use the firm ..... partnership business including its goodwill and the name' m/s. perfection silk and saree kendra. 5. learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted, on the basis of the above clause read with section 36 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (the act) that defendants no. 2 and 3 had no right to use the word 'perfection' in any business that they may be concerned with. section 36 of the act reads as follows:- 36. right of outgoing partner to carry .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 1980 (HC)

Hukmi Chand Vs. Jaipur Ice and Oil Mills Co. and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1980Raj155; 1980()WLN200

..... .exception 1. -- one who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying on ..... so long as the buyer or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him carries on the like business. under section 36(1) of the partnership act, an outgoing partner has a right to carry on a business competing with that of the firm, and to use the firm name, but under subsection (2) of section 36, the partners can enter into an agreement in restraint of trade and can bind themselves not to ..... like to deal with the law codified in section 27 of the indian contract act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the contract act) and sections 36, 54 and 55 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the partnership act).section 27 -- agreement in restraint of trade void. -- every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind is to that extent void .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 2012 (HC)

M/S Bhagwan Dass Khanna Jewellers Vs. Bhagwan Das Khanna Jewellers Pvt ...

Court : Delhi

..... , it is the admitted in law that the indian partnership act, 1932 provides for a mechanism for dealing in property which has been the subject matter of partnership firm upon dissolution of the firm. in this context, the relevant section of the partnership act, 1932 relating to the same is reproduced herein after:section 46:46. right of partners to have business wound up after dissolution. on the dissolution of a ..... uses the expression death of a member of firm or otherwise ceases to be a partner and thereafter uses the words surviving partners) and the surviving partners carry on the business of the firm without settling the accounts of the outgoing partner or the representatives, the said estate of the partner or his representative has the option either a share of profit since he ceased to ..... . where the goodwill of a firm is sold after dissolution, a partner may carry on a business competing with that of the buyer and he may advertise such business, but, subject to agreement between him and the buyer, he may not(a) use the firm name, (b) represent himself as carrying on the business of the firm, or (c) solicit the custom of persons who ..... would pass, which necessarily included goodwill, would be includible in the estate. the valuation of such entire interest has to be determined as provided under s. 36 of the estate duty act, 1953 read with rule 7(2) of the estate duty rules, 1953. (emphasis supplied) 45. from the bare reading of the aforenoted observations of supreme court in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 10 1961 (HC)

B. Koteswara Rao Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh, and O ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : [1962]46ITR882(AP)

..... the death of the former on may 13, 1946, that from that date right up to july 5, 1946, his wife continued to represent him in the said partnership business by reason of the directions given in the will and the provisions of sections 47 and 50 of the indian partnership act, 1932, and, secondly, assuming, however that the firm kotaiah sarabhaiah became dissolved on ..... heirs of the deceased partner. in this case, admittedly, durgamba joined veera sarabhaiah to carry on the business till the asset of the old partnership along with the goodwill of the business were transferred to the shankar foundry and machinery .the following passage in the law of partnership be desai (1940 edition, at page 243) under section 47 of the indian partnership act does not support the ..... even otherwise this argument is untenable. all that the partnership deed recites was that the profits and losses would be divided between the partners in certain shares until the business was discontinued and not that the partnership would not stand dissolved on the ..... existed.sri rajeswara row then fell back on the argument that the partnership deed itself contains a specific provision that the partnership was to continue till the business was discontinued. here again, such a case was not put forward before any of the tribunals.therefore, it is not competent for him to raise this point for the first time before us. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 09 1990 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nalli Silk Emporium and Another

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1991]192ITR79(Mad)

..... , no agreement to treat the firm as continuing notwithstanding the death of a partner, the partners have no option to treat the firm as continuing. under the indian partnership act, 1932, the firm gets dissolved and the income-tax officer is not entitled to ignore this consequence. there is nothing in the language of section 187, 188 or 189, according to the high court, which precludes the ..... the conduct of the parties in carrying on the business between august 5, 1973, and august 31, 1973. on the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted, referring to the provisions of the deeds of partnership and section 42(c) of the indian partnership act, that, on the terms found in the partnership deeds and the application of the provisions of the indian partnership act, the conclusion was irresistible that ..... on record, no accounts were taken and no rights and liabilities of the partners were determined and no dissolution took place, but the business had been carried on up to august 31, 1973, and that established that there was no dissolution on the death of one of the partners. the conduct of the surviving partners in continuing the partnership business subsequently, according to the income-tax officer, also .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 19 1959 (HC)

Abdul Razaak Vs. MashiruddIn Ahmed

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1959Cal660,63CWN766

..... of the nature of such suits, a suit for dissolution and accounts of an unregistered firm would be well protected by sub-section (3) of section 69 of the indian partnership act from the bar under the earlier sub-section or sub-sections of that section. this objection also, of the defendant-appellant should, therefore, fail and it would fail on the merits too, apart from the technical ..... .12. before parting with this case, however, we ought to clarify one matter. towards the conclusion of his judgment, the learned subordinate judge stated that the account papers of the partnership business before may 1951 must be held to be in the possession of the plaintiff and the plaintiff must produce those account papers before the accounts commissioner, to be appointed in ..... partnership between the parties was an unregistered one, and, prima facie, therefore, section 69, sub-section (1) may nit the present suit, we are fully satisfied that it is saved by the third sub-section to the said section. the said sub-section (sub-section 3) is inter alia in these terms:'the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall not affect (a) the enforcement of any right ..... , the defendant's appeal must fail.10. on the plaintiffs cross-objection it is enough to say that, on the materials before the court, the learned subordinate judge was entirely right in refusing to accept the plaintiff's case that there had been settlement and adjustment of accounts between the parties for the period 7th pous 1356 b. s. to bhadra .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 1964 (HC)

Sunil Krishna Paul and Other Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Beng ...

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : [1966]59ITR457(Cal)

..... for carrying on the business. the mere fact that the applicants own in common something which 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 ..... as partners. the intention or conduct of the applicants as appearing from the instrument negatives the theory of partnership between them. they appear to be out and out 'association of persons' for sharing profits. they may as such appoint staff for facility of faultless collection of profits but that by itself does not necessarily establish 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!

Jan 30 1996 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shankar Cottons

Court : Chennai

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

..... the firm. sec. 6 of the indian partnership act, 1932, particularly, expln. 2 to s. 6 of the partnership act says that the receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business, or of a payment contingent upon the earning of profits or varying with the profits earned by a business, does not of itself make him a partner along with the persons carrying on the business. it ..... 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!

Feb 18 1995 (HC)

Akberali Sons Estate Vs. the Pen Shop

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1995KAR1400; 1995(6)KarLJ206

..... provisions of section 15 of the indian partnership act, the co-owners (partners) are not entitled for seeking eviction on the ground of their personal necessity.15. in the present case, as discussed above, in my opinion, the landlords have successfully proved the plea of their personal necessity by adducing cogent evidence to that effect that -(i) they are presently residing and carrying on the business in ..... evidence to prove insufficiency of the accommodation vis-a-vis the members in their families which is evident from the foregoing paragraphs. pws.1 and 2 who are the most competent witnesses to depose with regard to insufficiency of accommodation in their possession, have clearly spelt out this aspect. no evidence has been produced on behalf of tenants to discredit this ..... my opinion, this fact by itself cannot negative the plea of necessity of the three co-owners because admittedly neither of the three co-owners can as a matter of right use and occupy the said building.20. the last limb of the contentions raised at the bar is based on the question as to whether the necessity pleaded by the ..... .12. for dealing with the plea of the tenants based on section 15 of the indian partnership act, 1932, i may first notice the statutory provisions in this regard. these are -'section 6. 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 .....

Tag this Judgment!


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