Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: andhra pradesh Page 6 of about 661 results (0.122 seconds)

Jun 18 2002 (HC)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Sakala Veera Bhadraiah and Co ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : I(2003)ACC118; 2004ACJ1987; 2002(5)ALT258

..... to pay the sum of rs. 2,07,394 towards costs.2. the suit was laid by the plaintiffs contending therein that the plaintiff no. 1 was a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act and was carrying on business in cotton and cottonseeds with a ginning and oil mill at nagulapadu, pedanandipadu mandal, ponnur dmc. plaintiff no. 2 is bank of baroda ..... he had distant relationship with s. veerabhadraiah, but in his cross-examination by appellants he admitted that he was married to the daughter of mrs. s. veerabhadraiah's sister. in indian social structure one's sister's son-in-law is not a distant relation by any stretch of imagination. since s. veerabhadraiah denied his close relationship with k. hanumantha rao ..... not sure as to the value of the property that he was seeking the insurance for. the plaintiffs-respondents have referred to the following judgments:indian trade & general ins. co. v. bhailal, : air1954bom148 ; svenska handelsbanken v. indian charge chrome, 1994 (1) alt 37; general assurance society ltd. v. chandmull jain, 1966 acj 267 (sc); p. packer v. v. khalid, : air1974ker121 and mina .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 2007 (HC)

Durga Subrahmanyameswara and Co. Vs. Siripurapu Sankaraiah and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2007(3)ALD679

..... c.m.p. no. 824 of 1991 was filed praying for reception of the certified copy of the certificate of registration under section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (hereinafter for short referred to as 'the act') issued by the registrar of firms, a.p., hyderabad, as additional evidence. the counsel would maintain that inasmuch as on a technical ground, the suit was ..... learned counsel also would point out that originally the suit was instituted in individual name and in the light of the objection taken, the same was amended as representing the partnership firm and inasmuch as the defect was rectified by virtue of an amendment, the amendment would relate back to the date of the institution of the suit and hence, the ..... paras 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the judgment and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 69(2) of the act and the suit is barred by virtue of the said provision. however, while answering issue no. 1, the learned judge observed that the plaintiff has proved that it had paid .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 21 1993 (HC)

Bhasker Finance and Commercial Syndicate Rep. by Its Managing Partner ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1993(3)ALT627

..... ordersyed shah mohammed quadri, j.1. the substantial question of law that arises in this second appeal is whether sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (for short the act) requires that the partner of the firm, who files the suit on behalf of the firm, should be shown as partner in the register of firms.2. appellant is the ..... must also show that his name is so recorded in the register of firms.5. to appreciate these rival contentions, it is necessary to read section 69(2) of the act. section 69 deals with the effect of non-registration of firms. sub-section (2), with which we are concerned here provides that no suit to enforce a right arising from ..... suit was filed. out of this decree and judgment, the present second appeal arises.3. sri prasad, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that section 69(2) of the act does not require that a person filing the suit on behalf of the firm must show that his name is recorded as partner in the register of firms; it is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 13 2003 (HC)

Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Wool Spinning Mills Limited and anr. Vs. G ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR2003AP418; 2003(3)ALD419; III(2003)BC313

..... and thereforeis entitled to maintain the suit against a third party is always on the firm in view of the legislative mandate under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act - otherwise the cause of action for such a suit is not complete. the supreme court in bloom dekor limited v. subhash himat lal desai, : ..... in the firm....'10. on the other hand the learned counsel for the first respondent argued that the objection under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act was not raised before the court-below or in the grounds of appeal. learned counsel submitted that whether the firm is a registered firm or ..... of action.' 8. the division bench after noticing a large number of cases dealing with the scope and ambit of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act noticed that there was a divergence of opinion, but came to the conclusion, the relevant portion of which is already extracted earlier.9. the learned ..... we shall first deal with the objection regarding the maintainability of the suit in view of the prohibition contained under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act. the said section reads as follows:'no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any court by or on ..... . 4. the learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand argued that the objection of the bar under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act was not raised in the court-below and therefore the appellants should not be permitted to raise the same at this stage. secondly he argued .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 15 1966 (HC)

Jayalakshmi Rice and Oil Mill Contractors Co., Angalur Vs. Commissione ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1967AP99; [1967]64ITR125(AP)

..... rule 2 (b), as distinct from rule 2(a), following from the assessee exercising a statutory right given to him under s. 58 of the indian partnership act to convert an unregistered partnership into a registered partnership by an act of his volition.(27) the question is whether the period of limitation for this application automatically became extended when it was pending before the income-tax ..... on the ground that the first defendant had counter-manded payment. the managing proprietor of the plaintiff-firm sent a statement prescribed under section 57(1), travancore partnership act, which corresponded to section 58 of the indian partnership act, with the prescribed fee on 8-11-1947 and they were received by the registrar of joint stock companies on 12-11-1947. the plaintiff filed ..... not refer to the corresponding english law or the commentary of lindley which we have extracted earlier in this judgment. the question of the requirement of section 69 of the indian partnership act that the person suing should be shown in the register of firms as a partner in the firm does not arise in the present case. here, we are concerned with ..... the view which it took regarding that contention as follows:-'the contention on behalf of the assesse firm was that since it had made its application for registration under the indian partnership act on 20-10-1955, which was before the end of the 'previous year' the time limit (b) that is, 'before the end of previous year' and accordingly the application was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 18 1961 (HC)

Messrs. Kylasa Sarabhaiah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Prade ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : [1962]46ITR470(AP)

..... . such a course is not permissible in law. in commissioner of income-tax v. dwarkadas khetan & co., it is pointed out by the supreme court that :'section 30 of the indian partnership act clearly lays down that a minor cannot become a partner, though with the consent of the adult partners he may be admitted to the benefits of ..... (3) veeravalli narayana. in view of the decision of the supreme court above referred to, this partnership evidenced by the instrument dated december 12, 1953, is illegal and is not a partnership at all which can be recognised either under the indian partnership act or under the indian income-tax act.but then, it is contended by the learned counsel for the assessee that though in the ..... the income-tax officer in such manner as may be prescribed.'two condition have to be satisfied before a partnership can be registered under section 26a of the act : (1) it must be a partnership as permitted by the law, viz., the indian partnership act and (2) the instrument of partnership must specify the individual shares of the partners. unless these two conditions are satisfied, the alleged ..... concerned deed of partnership one of the partners is shown as kylasa sarabhaiah firm, it is really the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 1984 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh-ii, Hyderabad Vs. K.D.P.M. ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : [1986]157ITR247(AP)

..... , unable to accede to the contention of the revenue that the conduct subsequent to the death of subbarao indicated that there was no dissolution of the partnership by virtue of section 42(c) of the indian partnership act on september 3, 1971. 6. learned standing counsel did not fairly advance the plea that if there was a dissolution on september 3, 1971, in terms ..... counsel states that the tribunal failed to consider the impact of the subsequent conduct in arriving at the conclusion that there was a dissolution of the partnership within the terms of section 42(c) of the indian partnership act. 5. in the first place, we are unable to subscribe to the view that the admission of the legal heirs of a deceased partner would ..... urges, reflecting the conduct subsequent to the death of the partner point out to a contract between the partners under the partnership deed dated february 6, 1962, not to dissolve the partnership on the death of any partner putting out of application section 42 of the indian partnership act. according to the learned counsel, even if there was no specific provision in the deed of ..... partnership dated february 6, 1962, it is permissible to draw the necessary conclusion regarding the agreement to the contrary based on the subsequent conduct of the surviving partners and the legal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 14 1961 (HC)

Thummala Rama Rao and ors. Vs. Chodagam Venkateswara Rao and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1963AP154

..... andhra patrika and the notice to the registrar of firms and that, therefore, they are estopped from contending that the appellants continue to be liable under section 32 of the indian partnership act notwithstanding their retirement on 6-6-51 and 4-5-52. in support of this contention, reliance is placed upon the decision in abdul karim v. narayana murthy, 1958 andh ..... given of the dissolution.'the learned judge noticed that the words 'unless they themselves had notice of such dissolution' occurring in section 264 of the contract act have been omitted m section 45 of the indian partnership act and then considered the effect of that omission. the learned judge pointed out that public notice is now sufficient in all cases without any distinction between ..... suit promissory notes and not on the promissory notes themselves and that therefore all the partners including the appellants were liable. section 22 of the indian partnership act is as follows:'in order to bind a firm, an act or instrument done or executed by a partner or other person on behalf of the firm shall be done or executed in the firm name ..... the dales of the execution of the three promissory notes. but it held that since public notice under section 32 clause (3) of the indian partnership act was not given in the manner prescribed in section 72 of the said act, these defendants also were liable under the suit promissory notes. it also held that ex. a-4, the agreement dated 30-5-1952 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 2002 (HC)

Cit Vs. Suleman Khan and Mahaboob Khan Tobacco Exporters

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : [2002]123TAXMAN673(AP)

..... him as a partner; but it does not render a minor a competent and full partner. for that purpose, the law of partnership must be considered, apart from the definition in income tax act.section 30 of the indian partnership act clearly lays down that a minor cannot become a partner, though with the consent of the adult partners he may be admitted to ..... a benefit which would not have been available otherwise.7. the act has adopted the definitions of 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' given in the partnership act, 1932. section 2(23) of the act reads as follows :'(23) 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the indian partnership act, 1932 (9 of 1932); but the expression 'partner' shall also include any person who, ..... were below 20 excluding the minors who were only admitted to the benefits of the partnership as per section 30 of the partnership act. the tribunal affirmed the order of the appellate assistant commissioner. on reference, the karnataka high court held'under the provisions of the indian partnership act, a minor cannot be a partner because a minor is not competent to enter into ..... appeals to the tribunal under section 263. before the tribunal, on behalf of the assessee, it was contended that according to section 30 of the indian partnership act, a minor cannot be a partner although he may be admitted to the benefits of a partnership. it was also contended on behalf of the assessee that provisions of section 11(2) of the companies .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 19 1996 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Oriental T. Maritime

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : [1997]227ITR244(AP)

..... as it is admitted that the above mentioned sushilchand choudary was a minor at the time of constitution of the partnership. the partnership can only be brought into existence in accordance with the provisions of the indian partnership act. section 4 of the indian partnership act defines partnership. 'partner ship' is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all ..... or any of them acting for all. section 30 of partnership act declares that a person who is a minor may not be a full ..... supreme court in a decision in cit v. dwarkadas khetan and co. : [1961]41itr528(sc) . in that case, the supreme court ruled as under (page 533); 'section 30 of the indian partnership act clearly lays down that a minor cannot become a partner, though, with the consent of the adult partners, he may be admitted to the benefits of ..... evidenced by an instrument it shall not be signed by the minor partners. as per section 30 of the indian partnership act a person who is a minor may be admitted to a partnership firm to the benefits of the partnership and such a minor cannot be made liable for the loss of the firm unless he elects within six months of his attaining majority .....

Tag this Judgment!


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