Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: allahabad Year: 2002 Page 1 of about 12 results (0.019 seconds)

Dec 17 2002 (HC)

Gokul Prasad Vs. Additional District and Sessions Judge and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-17-2002

Reported in : 2003(2)AWC1393

..... court as follows (paragraph 18 of the said air) :'18. having regard to the above discussion, it seems to us clear that a partnership firm under the indian partnership act, 1932, is not a distinct legal entity apart from the partners constituting it and equally in law the firm as such has no separate rights ..... of its own in the partnership assets and when one talks of the firm's property or firm's assets all that is meant is ..... of india. therefore, a partner could not maintain the writ petition in firm's name even if, the firm was registered under section 59 of the partnership act. even if, an individual partner was affected personally, all the affected partners of the firm were supposed to join for maintaining the writ petition under ..... are the tenants. the supreme court in the case of malabar fisheries co. ltd, v. i. t. commissioner, kerala, held that a partnership firm under the partnership act is not distinct legal entity apart from the partners constituting it and equally in law the firm has no separate rights of its own in the ..... desires to sue the firm does not in any manner affect this right of the plaintiff.'44. applying the principles underlying section 43 of the indian contract act, 1872 and order i rule 6 of the code of civil procedure, it is evident that the impleadment of the petitioner as the opposite party .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 18 2002 (HC)

Shoib Ullah and ors. Vs. Bhartesh Chandra JaIn and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Sep-18-2002

Reported in : AIR2003All31

..... that firm m/s. s.u. butlders is an unregistered firm and therefore, the suit is barred under section 69 of the indian partnership act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the trial court framed an issue on this plea and recorded finding on 19-2-2001 that the suit is barred by section ..... mixed question of fact. the question whether the suit for accounting against the firm and the partners where the partnership is unregistered is a pure question of law. it is admitted that the partnership is unregistered.17. in my opinion, the trial court has therefore rightly exercised jurisdiction in deciding the above ..... take valuable time of the court. if after recording of the evidence it is found that the suit is barred by section 69 of the act the entire exercise will be in vain. therefore, the trial court properly exercised its jurisdiction to decide the above question as preliminary issue and the ..... scc 88 : (air 1996 sc 2209). in this case the apex court was considering the application for reference of dispute under section 20 of the arbitration act. this case, therefore, is not applicable to the facts of the present case.9. the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has defendant the order ..... question as a preliminary issue. it has also rightly held that the suit is barred by section 69 of the act.18. the first appeal from order .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 2002 (HC)

Cit Vs. K. Wadhumal and Sons

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-05-2002

Reported in : [2003]130TAXMAN611(All)

orderthis is an income-tax reference under section 256(1) of the income tax act in which the following question has been referred to us for our opinion :'whether the tribunal was justified in holding that there should be two separate assessments for the two periods in the case ?'2. the relevant assessment year is 1980-81. during this assessment year one of the partners kewal bai died and thereafter a new partnership deed was entered into by which a new partner was indicated. the question is whether it was a case of dissolution or reconstitution of the firm.3. it is settled law that ordinarily on the death of a partner, the partnership firm is automatically dissolved vide section 42 of the indian partnership act. the only exception is where in the partnership deed it is mentioned that on death of a partner the firm will not dissolve. in this case there is nothing to show that there is any mention in the partnership deed that the firm shall not automatically dissolve on the death of a partner.4. hence, in view of the decision of the supreme court in cit v. empire estate : [1996]218itr355(sc) this reference is decided in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the department.

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 07 2002 (HC)

Cit Vs. Shyam Sunder and Sons

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-07-2002

Reported in : [2003]130TAXMAN596(All)

orderheard counsel for the parties.2. this is an income-tax reference under section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1961. in which the following question has been referred to us for our opinion :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was not the case of mere change in the constitution of the firm within the meaning of section 187(2) of the income tax act, 1961 ?'3. the relevant assessment year is 1981-82. during this assessment year one of the partner of the assessee-firm smt. vidyawati devi died on 16-5-1980. there is no mention in the partnership deed that the partnership will continue despite the death of a partner. hence in view of section 42(c) of the indian partnership act, the firm automatically stated dissolved on the death of the partner and hence it is a case of dissolution of the firm and not re-constitution. consequently there should be two assessments and not one in view of the supreme court decision in cit v. empire estate : [1996]218itr355(sc) . we, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. the reference is answered accordingly.

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 22 2002 (HC)

Ram Kishun Maurya and ors. Vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-22-2002

Reported in : 2003(1)AWC458

..... goods has a liability to pay tax impugned in the petition, each one has his own independent cause of action. a firm as understood under the partnership act or a company as understood under the indian companies act, if it is entitled in law to commence action either in the firm name or in the company's name, can do so by filing a ..... petitioners can be cured by requiring each petitioner to pay separate court fees.'9. there were two writ petitions before the court. in writ petition no. 13367 of 1981, 36 partnership firms had filed a single writ petition. each of such firms carried on business independently and under a licence granted to them separately by the mandi samiti. in writ petition ..... its own rights- (1) in case members of such an association are themselves unable to approach the court by reason of poverty, disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position 'little indians'). (2) in case of a public injury leading to public interest litigation provided the association has some concern deeper than that of a way-farer or a busybody, i.e ..... india by more than one petitioner, not connected with each other as partners or any other subsisting jural relationship is maintainable where the right to relief arises from the same act or transaction or where though the right of claim does not arise from the same right or transaction, the petitioners are jointly interested in the cause or causes of action .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 2002 (HC)

Addl. Cit Vs. Ram Prasad

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Aug-26-2002

Reported in : (2002)176CTR(All)577

..... he is himself a member, nor can he be employed by his firm, for a man cannot be his own employer.' the provisions in chapters iii and iv of the partnership act amply define and delineate the duties, obligations and rights of the partners vis-a-vis the firm. the question yet remains where an individual is a partner in one capacity ..... of the profits being made over as a reward for the human capital brought in section 13 of the partnership act brings into focus this basis of partnership business.'8. this court also quoted with approval the passage from lindley on the law of partnership to the effect : 'in point of law, a partner may be the debtor or the creditor of his co ..... rights of partners. so far as outsiders are concerned, it is the karta, who alone is, and is in law recognized, as the partner. whether in entering into partnership with outsiders the karta acted in his individual capacity and for his own benefit, or he did so as representing his joint family and for its benefit, is a question of fact. in ..... of the assessee-firm may become the income of the family which he represented in the partnership but that would not entitle the partnership to claim remuneration paid to the partner for services rendered as business expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the indian income tax act. in the view that we take, we find considerable support from the observations of the supreme .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 2002 (HC)

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram Prasad

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Aug-26-2002

Reported in : [2002]258ITR415(All)

..... he is himself a member, nor can he be employed by his firm, for, a man cannot be his own employer'. the provisions in chapters iii and iv of the partnership act amply define and delineate the duties, obligations and rights of the partners vis-a-vis the firm. the question yet remains where an individual is a partner in one capacity ..... portion of the profits being made over as a reward for the human capital brought in. section 13 of the partnership act brings into focus this basis of partnership business.' this court also quoted with approval the passage from lindley on the law of partnership to the effect: 'in point of law, a partner may be the debtor or the creditor of his co ..... rights of partners. so far as outsiders are concerned, it is the karta, who alone is, and is in law recognised, as the partner. whether in entering into partnership with outsiders the karta acted in his individual capacity and for his own benefit, or he did so as representing his joint family and for its benefit, is a question of fact. in ..... of the assessee-firm may become the income of the family which he represented in the partnership but that would not entitle the partnership to claim remuneration paid to the partner for services rendered as business expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the indian income-tax act. in the view that we take, we find considerable support from the observations of the supreme .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 23 2002 (HC)

Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-23-2002

Reported in : 2003(1)ALD(Cri)121; 2002(3)AWC1783; [2003]114CompCas434(All); 2002CriLJ3682

..... under the cheque in question, for the goods supplied were sub-standard and that m/s. sterling novelty product being not registered firm under the partnership act cannot maintain the criminal proceeding. he, however, confined his argument as to the maintainability of the criminal proceedings, in support whereof he relied upon ..... of the intimation by the petitioner to stop payment. accordingly, indian overseas bank informed the respondent regarding bouncing of cheques on 23.4.1999. the respondent firm thereupon gave notice in writing to the petitioner ..... by the petitioner as president of m/s. international gifts limited to m/s. sterling novelty products, moradabad, were deposited with its banker namely, indian overseas bank, moradabad, who in turn sent the same for encashment to the banker of the petitioner, but it returned the cheques unpaid in view ..... as regards the validity of the notice and period of limitation for filing complaint, his case is that on being informed by its banker, indian overseas bank on 23.4.1999 regarding dishonour of the cheques, he sent notice on 6.5.1999 to the accused calling upon him to ..... , the petitioner as president of m/s. international gifts ltd. the complainant presented the cheque no. 001530 dated 15.2.1999 with its banker indian overseas bank, moradabad and the same was sent to bank of montreal, canada. the cheque was dishonoured and returned unpaid since the accused intimated his .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 23 2002 (HC)

Radhey Shyam Garg and anr. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation and ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jul-23-2002

Reported in : I(2003)BC61; (2003)1UPLBEC932

..... in udai pratap and anr. v. u.p. financial corporation, varanasi and anr., 1978 acn 6. in udai pratap case, there was a partnership firm running business under the name and style of vishwakarma auto industry, with their place of business at bhashkar sagar kosripur, police station rohania, varanasi. ..... neither the principal debtor nor the surety discharged the admitted liability of the principal debtor in spite of demands. under section 128 of the indian contract act, save as provided in the contract, the liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor. the surety became thus ..... the guarantor. it is the right of the decree-holder to proceed with it in a way he likes. section 128 of the indian contract act itself provides that 'the liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided by the ..... nagar whereby the u.p. financial corporation (defendant-appellant) was directed to take recourse to proceedings under section 29 of the stage financial corporation act, 1951 and to recover the amount by enforcing the personal liability only if entire amount due is not recovered in the aforesaid manner. the division ..... they were directors of om steel and alloys--unit of om refrigeration private limited, faizabad which was a private limited company incorporated under the companies act; and that om steel and alloys sought financial assistance from u.p. financial corporation, kanpur for establishing the unit; and that a loan .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 19 2002 (HC)

Jagannath and anr. Vs. State of U.P.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-19-2002

Reported in : 2003CriLJ2702

..... the ruling reported in 1980 cri lj 1330 : air 1981 sc 82, hari obula reddi v. state of andhra pradesh that the interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. even partnership by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony nor is it an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless ..... dated 25-7-1989 passed by sri dharam paul, the then iv additional sessions judge, unnao in s.t. no. 88 of 1985 convicting the accused-appellants under section 307 ipc and sentencing them to undergo 5 years r,i.2. during pendency of the appeal, the appellant no. 1 jagannath has died, hence the appeal against jagannath stands abated.3 ..... have been corroborated by the medical evidence also, i find that the court below was justified in convicting the accused-appellant ram naresh for the offence punishable under section 307, ipc.8. the appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. .....

Tag this Judgment!


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