Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act 1932 section 5 partnership not created by status Page 1 of about 9,946 results (1.042 seconds)

Jun 06 2001 (HC)

P. Balakrishna Rao Licencee of Harsha Wines Vs. Prohibition and Excise ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2001(4)ALD576

..... in form il 24. (e) ....(f) ....5. the contention of the petitioner is that the aforementioned amended rule is not applicable in case of a partnership firm having regard to the fact that the petitioner being holder of joint licence and the licensees having been carrying on the business in partnership. 6. partnership in terms of section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932 signifies the relation between the partners ..... . actual existence of a business therefore is a sine qua non for constitution of a partnership.7. a partnership firm is not a juristic person. it can neither sue and nor can be sued. relationship of partners in terms of section 5 of the partnership act arises from a contract and no status is created thereby. the mutual rights and obligations of the partners arise out of contract and ..... in absence of a contract, in terms of the provisions of section 13 of the act. the licences .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 2000 (HC)

Kanoria Fleurs and Naturales Limited, Bangalore Vs. the General Manage ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2000KAR3222; 2000(5)KarLJ1

..... partners though, in form, it may be against the firm only. thus, it was held that the firm and its partners are interchangeable terms and therefore if a partnership firm incurs any liability, it is the liability of all the partners. section 25 of the indian partnership act, 1932 provides that every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally for all ..... the constitution. similarly, the delhi high court in smt. krishan kumar's case, supra, held that the term 'subscriber' means a person or firm, who have subscribed and it would not include the relations, who have independent connections and whose phone the defaulter may he using and, therefore, dmt nigam cannot demand dues (or give threat of disconnection) to relations of ..... /s. bangalore pesticides and he has signed telephone application for telephone no. 3344920. the matter is being investigated and steps are taken to recover the dues and that it is not sure about relationship of the appellant with the bangalore pesticides. the matter is being investigated.12. in these state of affairs we are of the view that the department ought ..... the judgment of the supreme court in the case of mandalsa devi v m. ramnarain private limited, wherein it was laid down that the partnership firm has a limited status for the purpose of order 33 of the civil procedure code and that legal fiction created by order 30 cannot be carried too far. a partnership firm has no legal personality and persons who are individually partners .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 17 1994 (TRI)

Sarvaraya Textiles Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad

Reported in : (1995)54ITD612(Hyd.)

..... also called is a matter of status. this is so, even if the family carries on a family business. this position in law has been given statutory recognition, by section 5 of the indian partnership act, 1932. after laying down that the relation of partnership arises from contract and not from status, it proceeds to declare that the ..... that way, and the legal condition create by it is determined by the law, and cannot be modified by the agreement of the parties. a business partnership, on the other hand, pertains to the law of contract and not to that of status." status thus is a condition of membership of a ..... condition which he has acquired for himself by agreement. the position of a slave is a matter of status, the position of a free servant is a matter of contract. marriage creates a status in this sense, for although it is entered into by way of consent, it cannot be dissolved in ..... made under the said contact, were made partly by ssc and partly by a few others at the instance of ssc. but such over-supply created problems for the assessee, which, in their turn, impelled the assessee to refuse to make payments in relation to the excess stock supplied.predictably ..... very efficiently in a dust proof and temperature controlled atmosphere. so that wipro computer was installed in the office premises where such atmosphere could be created in the existing circumstances.(3) hence it is submitted that wipro computer being part of the plant and machinery is eligible for investment allowance." 60 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 2015 (HC)

Sarla Bala Sinha Vs. Sarat Chandra Sinha and Ors

Court : Delhi

..... that the present suit is barred under section 69(1) of the indian partnership act, 1932.9. without prejudice to the aforesaid, he submits that section 69(1) creates a bar only to such suits which are brought by a partner of the firm. he points out that in the present case the plaintiff has yet to be given a status of a partner of the defendant no ..... that in accordance with clause 17 of the partnership deed dated 01st april, 1992, the ..... ).4. mr. gupta, lastly submits that the present suit is also barred under section 69(1) of the indian partnership act, 1932. he states that the suit filed by the plaintiff claiming herself to be a partner in an alleged ongoing partnership firm-defendant no.3 is not maintainable as the firm is not registered.5. on the other hand, mr. avneesh garg, learned counsel for plaintiff points out ..... share of the deceased partner mr. anandmoy sinha had to go to his legal representatives. he submits that sections 106 and 110 of the limitation act, 1963 apply to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 1987 (TRI)

Patchipulusu Subbarayudu Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad

Reported in : (1987)22ITD475(Hyd.)

..... erstwhile partners had to be taxed and the assessee-firm could not be taxed as a registered firm. in the case before us, since the firm itself stood dissolved in terms of section 42(b) of the indian partnership act, 1932, there is no question of assessment being made in the status of unregistered firm or registered firm.8. before parting with this appeal, we may add ..... purchase. this being so, the only way the co-owners have of putting an end to commensality of ownership and of creating separate dimensions over as many separate interests as there are co-owners would be by way of regular deed of partition. without a deed of partition or, at any rate ..... proved. in this view of the matter, he applied the ratio of the decisions in cit v. indira balkrishna [1960] 39 itr 546 (sc) and g. murugesan & bros, v, cit [1973] 88 itr 432 (sc).thus he sustained the assessment in the status of association of persons.5. before us, none appeared for the assessee in spite of notices having been served. the case ..... in the names of individual partners. in this context, he relied on the following observations of the madras high court in cit v. dadha & co. [1983] 142 itr 792 :- but the immovable properties in this case were jointly owned by persons who happened to be partners and who acquired the properties by joint .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 22 1961 (HC)

Tulsiram Sanganeria and anr. Vs. Smt. Anni Bai and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1963Ori11

..... personal decree against the karta of the family and can proceed against the entire joint family assets in the hands of the junior members thereof.reference was made to section 5 of the indian partnership act, 1932. section 5 states that the relationship of partnership arises from contract and not from status, and in particular, the members of a hindu undivided family carrying on a family business as such, are ..... of haramohan v. sudarson, reported in air 1821 cal 538, held on the ..... allahabad high court in : air1946all259 , ram kumar v. kishori lal. the madras high court in the case reported in air 1959 mad 283, narayanan chettiar v. umayal achi, expressed the opinion that on the death of one of the two partners, the legal representatives joining the survivors in the business creates a new partnership. similarly the calcutta high court in the case ..... facts of that case that the partnership was not dissolved on the death of a partner.15. paragraph 308a of mayne's hindu law .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 1989 (HC)

indravadan Pranlal Shah Vs. General Manager, Ahmedabad Telephones Dist ...

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : AIR1990Guj85; (1990)1GLR297

..... partners though, in form, it may be against the firm only. thus, it was held that the firm and its partners are interchangeable terms and therefore if a partnership firm incurs any liability, it is the liability of all the partners. section 25 of the indian partnership act, 1932 provides that every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally for all ..... discriminatory treatment to a subscriber firm and a subscriber limited company. it is to be noticed that the two fall into distinct classes. company has a legal personality, which a partnership does not have, and therefore the partners are the owners whereas in a company, the ownership vests in large body of shareholders, that too in a peculiar manner. its ownership is ..... subscriber-partner even in his individual capacity is liable to disconnection. we are incomplete agreement with the learned single judge in this regard. the learned counsel for the petitioner could not distinguish or indicate as to how this judgment is erroneous. 9. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no notice to the petitioner was served as an individual. the ..... supreme court in the case of mandalsa devi v. m.ramnarain pvt. ltd., 68 bom lr 31: (air 1965 sc 1718) wherein it was laid down that the partnership firm has a limited status for the purpose of o. xxxiii of civil procedure code and that legal fiction created by o. xxx cannot be carried too far. a partnership firm has no legal personality and persons who .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 29 2009 (HC)

Prakash Chand Vs. Bhanwar Lal and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : RLW2009(4)Raj3419

..... to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it will be appropriate to look into the status of the petitioner and his rights in existence under the indian partnership act, 1932 and also indian limitation act, 1963.8. as per section 4 of the partnership act, 1932, 'partnership' is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profit of a business carried on by all or ..... of erach f.d. mehta v. mintoo f.d. mehta : air 1971 sc 1653 held that when the partnership consisted of only two partners and one partner agreed to retire, there can be no doubt that the agreement that one of the partners will retire, amounts to dissolution of the partnership.10. section 41(b) of the partnership act, 1932 specifically declared that a firm ..... but that single person's business in another's name or other name, is not the business of partnership firm. such single person's name may be called as proprietorship firm but such firm is not a firm as defined in the partnership act. for creating a partnership firm to carry on partnership business, the agreement may be express or implied but the question which goes to ..... .r. 1921 calcutta 538 and with the help of the judgment of this court delivered in the case of dinesh jangid v. laxmi kant jangid 2007 (2) wlc (raj.) 703, it was submitted that, after dissolution of firm, partnership still subsists for purpose of completing pending transactions, winding up, settlement of accounts and other rights and obligations inter se parties .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 2016 (HC)

M/s. Amritlakshmi Machine Works and Another Vs. The Commissioner of Cu ...

Court : Mumbai

..... of law. the above position is also clear by virtue of sections 4, 25 and 26 of the indian partnership act, 1932. however where the legislation, specifically provides otherwise, then a partnership firm should be accorded a status of a separate legal entity. this has been so held by the supreme court in state of punjab v/s. jullunder syndicate (1966 air(sc) 1295)wherein the court ..... firm and the partners. he submits that the division bench thus ought not to have applied the deeming fiction created by section 140 of the act to section 112(a) of the act. in this context it is urged that section 140 of the act falls under chapter xvi which prescribes 'offences and prosecution', whereas section 112(a) falls under chapter xiv which provides for 'confiscation of improper ..... would amount to double penalty. this is against article 20(2) of the constitution of india; (v) section 140 does not override the entire act which applies only to offences under chapter xvi. (vi) the deeming fiction created under section 140 of the act cannot be extended to apply to section 112(a) of the act as it cannot be extended beyond the purpose for which it is ..... the reason and in the sense, that infringement of law as contemplated under the said provision though is not made a criminal offence but can still be regarded as an offence for the purpose of applying the deeming fiction created under section 140 of the act, so as to make the firm and the partners simultaneously liable for imposing a penalty. a purposive .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 1993 (HC)

Company of Management for Baranagar Jute Factory and ors. Vs. Atis Dip ...

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : 1993CriLJ2165

..... within the meaning of the partnership act, 1932 and its members are not partners on that account. mr. maitra submits that as it is an association of individuals it is covered by the definition of a company as referred to in section 141 of the act. but truly speaking the committee of management constituted by the high court has no legal status as such to represent the ..... submits that its character is that of a firm under the indian partnership act, 1932 and as a prosecution is possible against a firm so the present prosecution against the committee of management is a legal one. the nature and character of a firm have been explained in : air1932cal768 (kadar bux omar hyat v. bukt behari) wherin it has been stated that a firm is ..... court is not a company and that as such no successful prosecution can continue ..... second time had lost the right to launch a prosecution under section 138. his second contention is that the prosecution having been initiated under section 138, read with section 141 of the negotiable instruments act, the accused must be a company within the meaning of section 141. it is argued that the committee of management created on the basis of a scheme approved by the high .....

Tag this Judgment!


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