Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act 1932 section 36 rights of outgoing partner to carry on competing business Year: 1998

Feb 19 1998 (HC)

A. Nagappan and 8 Others Vs. M/S. Mc. Adams Chemicals Manufacturing Co ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-19-1998

Reported in : 1998(1)CTC694; (1998)IIMLJ435

..... have passed a resolution on 15-8- 1996 removing the managing partner from the partnership. they have no power under section 33 of the indian partnership act. they contended that a partner may not be expelled by majority of partners as per section 33 of the indian partnership act. they further contended that a right conferred upon a managing partner to run the business and operate bank accounts has been varied, such a variation ..... . g. subramaniam as well as mr. t. v. ramanujan is that since the suit itself is for dissolution, the suit must be construed t6 be one under section 44 of the indian partnership act, 1932 and therefore order 20, rule 15 of civil procedure code will apply. the point is that as per order 20, rule 15 civil procedure code only after the decision by the trial court ..... in 691 of 1996 in of 1996, granting injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with the operation of the bank accounts and carrying on the business of the partnership. though, injunction was granted as prayed for by the trial court, the injunction was modified by the lower appellate court to the extent that the managing ..... therefore, in my view, in a case of partnership at will, the question of application of order 20, rule 15 of civil procedure code is applicable only for the purpose of declaring the shares, the deemed date of dissolution. the question of the court declaring its own date does not arise at all.36. yet another contention raised by the learned counsel for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 1998 (HC)

Vinayak Keshav Paranjape Vs. Dena Bank and Others

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-06-1998

Reported in : 1998(4)BomCR186

..... referred to the provisions of the indian partnership act and since the conclusions of the learned trial judge are based on the interpretation of these provisions, it is necessary to refer to the same. 11. section 32 of the said act is in respect of the retirement of a partner. sub-section (2) of section 32 makes a provision that a retiring partner may be discharged from the liability ..... on the background of the fact that defendant no. 1 was a small firm and the firm was also not registered. they were carrying on business of shoes and chappals. there were only two partners. one of them having retired and partnership firm came to an end and new firm in the same name was started by defendant no. 3 and his father. intimation ..... who,under the direction of the partners for the time being, carrying onbusiness according to the ordinary course, where a man has establishedsuch an agency and has held it out to others, they have a right toassume that it continues, until they have notice to the contrary.' 12. the principle of law which is stated in lindley on partnership was referred to bythe division ..... the firm-defendant no. 1. with this knowledge plaintiff-bank obtained written acknowledgment from defendant no. 3 and his father by describing them as the partners of m/s. suresh chappal company, and therefore, it was rightly contended by mr. godbole, the learned counsel for the appellant that the document exhibit 32 imputes the knowledge of the fact that defendant no. 2 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 1998 (HC)

National Textile Corporation Ltd., Unit, Coimbatore Murugan Mills Ltd. ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-04-1998

Reported in : (1998)2MLJ195

..... he' is, or who has been adjudicated to be, a partner;(c) against any person who has been individually served as a partner with a summons and has failed to appear;provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the provisions of section 30 of the indian partnership act, 1932. (2) where the decree holder claims to be entitled to ..... . 762 of 1993 became a selling agent of the petitioner/plaintiff in respect of various goods and products manufactured by it. according to the petitioner in due course of the business, the second defendant/third respondent took orders with the petitioner from time to time for supply of goods to the first defendant/fourth respondent in c.r.p. no. 762 ..... individually. in those cirucmstnaces, neither clause (b) nor clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of rule 50, order 21, c.p.c. will apply and therefore, the learned judge was right in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner herein.8. the court below following the decision in sri laxmi ganapathy mills v. c. radhakrishnan (1990)1 l.w. 12 i ..... of 1993. in respect of the goods purchased by the first defendant/fourth respondent from the petitioner/plaintiff, a sum of rs. 57,514.36 was payable by the first defendant/fourth respondent to the petitioner. since the amount was not paid, they filed the suit. the said suit was decreed on 2.2.1984 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 1998 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Saraf Trading Corporation

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Aug-04-1998

Reported in : (1998)150CTR(Ker)282; [1999]239ITR41(Ker)

..... dated september 16, 1981, where-under the assessee-firm was reconstituted and so, he apportioned the profits of the second period equally among all the partners applying the provisions of section 13(b) of the indian partnership act, 1932.3. for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85, which are not relevant for the purpose of the instant reference, there was no change ..... the case. an outgoing partner shall have no share in the accumulated profits and on death, the estate of a deceased partner will get such share any, as the continuing partners shall decide. (c) in the event of loss, it shall first be set-off against past accumulated profits, if any, and the balance if any, shall be carried forward and set-off ..... concerned, the appellate tribunal has already remanded the matter to the assessing officer with necessary directions and rightly so. in view of the above discussion, we direct the tribunal to remand the question pertaining to the application of section 13(b) of the partnership act as well to the assessing officer to record a clear finding, in the light of the observations ..... the assessee-firm, engaged in the business of commission agent and export of tea, was originally constituted as a partnership firm by three partners under a partnership deed dated november 27, 1963. vide partnership deed dated september 16, 1981, the partnership was reconstituted, inasmuch as a new partner was inducted and a minor was admitted to the benefits of partnership. the assessee did not apply for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 1998 (HC)

Mahendra A. Dadia and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-17-1998

Reported in : 1998(4)ALLMR115; 1999(5)BomCR124; 1999BomCR(Cri)124; 1999CriLJ4361

..... creditor of the petitioners. petitioner no. 6 is a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act, 1932 having its office and place of business at amrut, hansoti road, carna lane, ghatkopar (west), mumbai- 400 086. petitioner no. 6 is stated to be engaged in the business of construction and property development. petitioner nos. 1 to 5 are the partners of petitioner no. 6. it is categorically stated ..... dishonoured because of 'stop payment' instruction to the bank, section 138 would get attracted'. we are in complete agreement with the above legal proposition. 12. the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that both these decisions of this court clearly support the case of the appellant and the trial court had rightly issued the process and the high court was totally ..... in the complaint that petitioner no. 1 to 5 jointly manage the business of petitioner no. 6. respondent no. 2 had lent and advanced diverse amounts as and by way of loan carrying interest at the rate of 18% per annum to petitioner no .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 16 1998 (HC)

Varadachary and Company, Hyderabad Vs. Superiniteding Engineer (Operat ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-16-1998

Reported in : 1999(3)ALD599; 1999(3)ALT431

..... to all the partners of his intention to dissolve the firm. the respondent ..... notice the copies of the earlier partnership deeds. one such partnership is dated 29-9-1990. under the clause (v) of the said partnership, it is stated that the partnership shall be at will. the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the said partnership being a partnership at will under section 43 of the indian partnership act, the same may be dissolved by any partner by giving notice in writing ..... counsel has brought to my notice, a notice issued by one of the partners dated 5-7-1996 intimating the board .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 1998 (HC)

Y. Baliah Chetty Sons and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-29-1998

Reported in : [2000]244ITR870(Mad)

..... indian partnership act, 1932. when there is a dissolution deed, and it was acted upon, it is not open to the partners to go behind or against the terms of the dissolution deed and contend that there was no dissolution. the rights and liabilities of the partners as well as erstwhile partners would be settled and they would be governed and determined by the deed of dissolution. under section ..... cannot be said that the partners who continued to carry on the business were not the same partners who prior to the dissolution carried on the said business. so also the rights and liabilities of the partners who went out of the firm would be governed by the deed of dissolution as well as by the provisions of the indian partnership act. the third circumstance that is ..... relied upon by the tribunal is that the accounts of the partners ..... place in the constitution of the firm. once the dissolution deed was executed and on that basis the new firm carried on the business, the rights and liabilities of the partners would be governed by the new partnership deed. the erstwhile partners rights, who went out of the firm would be governed by the deed of dissolution of the firm and, therefore, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 08 1998 (SC)

M/S. Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. Vs. Ganesh Property

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-08-1998

Reported in : 1998VIIAD(SC)37; AIR1998SC3085; (1999)1CALLT22(SC); 1999(1)CTC175; JT1998(6)SC289; 1998(5)SCALE195; (1998)7SCC184; [1998]Supp1SCR485

..... of the arbitration agreement between the parties was covered by section 69 sub-section 3 of the indian partnership act. in this connection this court observed that :'that since the arbitration clause formed a part of the agreement constituting the partnership it is obvious that the proceeding which is before the court is to enforce a right which arises from a contract. whether one views the contract ..... the law of the land, namely that the original landlord cannot physically throw out such an erstwhile tenant by force. he must get his claim for possession adjudicated by a competent court as per the relevant provisions of law. the status of an erstwhile tenant has to be . treated as a tenant at sufferance akin to a trespasser having no independent ..... upon such a lessee by the express provisions of section 108(q) read with section 111(a) of the property act.22. so far as the applicability of the bar of section 69indian parternership act, 1932^ sub-section (2) of the partnership act is concerned, it is true that it is a penal provision which deprives the plaintiff of its right to get its case examined on merits by the ..... of the conditions of the aforesaid undertaking or the present order is committed breach of, extension of time will stand recalled and the decree for possession will become executable forthwith.36. in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 1998 (HC)

M/S. Charkop Priya Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. M/S. Trade Well Con ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-15-1998

Reported in : 1998(4)ALLMR525; 1998(4)BomCR881; (1998)3BOMLR543; 1999(1)MhLj112

..... under :--(a) there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record as the respondents were not a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act as amended in the state of maharashtra and were thus barred under section 69 of the indian partnership act from meeting the claim. the claim petition of the respondents, therefore, it is contended had to be rejected. (b) by ..... given by the petitioners can be spelt out. on the contrary what is seen is that as per the entry dated 19th october, 1996 the date of joining of the partners in the firm are with effect from 1st april, 1986. it is further averred therein that the respondent firm had applied for registration and due to technical reasons there was ..... : save as specifically provided elsewhere in the conditions of contract the contract price, shall not be adjusted in respect of any increase or decrease of cost to the contractor in carrying out the works by reason of alteration in the rates of wages and allowances payable to the labour and staff change in the conditions of employment or labour and staff ..... kind which can properly be said to be for enforcement of any right arising from contract except those expressly mentioned as exceptions in subsection (3) and sub-section (4). it may be rioted that the proceedings arose on an application moved to the court under section 8(2) of the indian arbitration act. in the case of meghraj sampatlall v. raghunath and son, : air1955cal278 a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 1998 (SC)

Ashok Transport Agency Vs. Awadhesh Kumar and Another

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-31-1998

Reported in : AIR1999SC1484; JT1998(7)SC103; (1998)120PLR810; RLW1999(1)SC191; 1998(5)SCALE730; (1998)5SCC567

..... partnership is governed by the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932. though a partnership is not a juristic person but order xxx rule 1 cpc enables the partners of a partnership firm to sue or to be sued in the name of the firm. a proprietary concern is only the business name in which the proprietor of the business carries on the business ..... . a suit by or against a proprietary concern is by or against the proprietor of the business. in ..... it could be executed. the learned counsel has submitted that there is a distinction between a partnership firm and a proprietary business and that insofar as proprietary business is concerned, the proprietor of the business is the party to the proceedings and if the proprietor is dead on the date of the ..... be held to be a nullity and, therefore, it could be executed. feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant, which is now a partnership firm has filed this appeal. 4. shri amarendra sharan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has urged that the high court was in ..... . 9. in the circumstances, we are unable to uphold the impugned judgment of the high court. in our opinion, the executing court has rightly taken the view that the suit having been filed against the dead person, the decree was a nullity and could not be executed. the appeal .....

Tag this Judgment!

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