Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: andhra pradesh Page 7 of about 661 results (0.076 seconds)

Jun 06 2002 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Suleman Khan and Mahaboob Khan Tobacco ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : [2002]257ITR170(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 ..... the firm 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 aac. 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 any ..... a benefit which would not have been available otherwise.7. the act has adopted the definitions of 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership1 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, ..... preferred 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!

Aug 24 1988 (HC)

N. Satyanarayana Murthy and ors. Vs. M. Venkata Bala Krishnamurthy

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1989AP167

..... the statement of accounts pursuant to ex.a6 is not correct, the respondent was unilaterally expelled from the partnership with effect from march 1, 1976; it is illegal, void and hit by section 32 of the indian partnership act (act 9 of 1932) (for short 'the act'), the 1st appellant mismanaged the affairs of the business of the firm, caused great prejudice to the respondent ..... partners; (2) by an action brought out by one partner against the other for the purpose of dissolving the partnership. in the foot-note it is stated that a proposal for a dissolution, not accepted, is not a dissolution.' 17. mukerji on indian partnership act,3rd edition, 1974 at page 370 para 22, thescope of the word 'just and equitable undersection 44(g) ..... has not been defined precisely, hasstated thus -'but, it is submitted, that the court's power to act under this sub-section is virtually unlimited and cannot be restricted to the ..... by forcibly retiring him from the firm without any authority, the respondent lost confidence in the management by the 1st appellant; and accordingly directed dissolution of the partnership with effect from feb .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 27 2001 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhanodaya Industries

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : (2002)173CTR(AP)363; [2002]253ITR350(AP)

..... clause (a) and sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of claluse (b) of section 48. 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 ..... of the asset; or (ii) the extinguishment of any rights therein ; or . . .'section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932, defines 'partnership', 'partner', 'firm', and 'firm name'. section 4 reads :'section 4. definition of 'partnership', 'partner', 'firm', and 'firm name': 'partnership' is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of business carried on by all or any of ..... assessee.before considering the contention of learned counsel, it would be proper to refer to the relevant provisions of the act as well as the indian partnership act, 1932 :clause (47) of section 2 of the income-tax act, 1961, reads :'section 2. in this act, unless the context otherwise requires, . . . (47) 'transfer', in relation to a capital asset, includes,--(i) the sale, exchange or relinquishment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 07 2003 (HC)

J.K. Finance and Chit Funds Vs. R. Surya Kumar and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR2004AP190; 2004(1)ALD847; II(2004)BC558

..... judge of this high court held that the proof of registration of a firm is sufficient to overcome the hurdle imposed by section 69(2) of the act 4. section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 reads as follows:(2) no suits to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of a ..... need for registration of the partnership deed of a registered firm. therefore, the order of the lower court has to be set aside by holding that the suit ..... and also filed a copy of the partnership deed to show that one of the partners, who represented the firm for filing the suit was a partner of the firm. he further submitted that when once the firm is a registered one, the requirement under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 (for short 'the act') is complied with. therefore, there is no ..... the defendant could not point out the non-compliance of any of the requirements of section 69(2) of the act.7. the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants contended that the mere registration of the firm is not sufficient. the partnership deed shall also be registered to enable the firm to file a suit against third party. the learned counsel for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 09 2001 (HC)

D. Rajeshwar Rao Vs. Government of A.P. and Another

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2001(2)ALD253; 2001(2)ALT113; 2001CriLJ2667

..... station dated 5-5-1999.3. sri p. venugopal, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by virtue of the provisions of the indian partnership act no crime has been made out against the petitioner. it is his contention that none of the offences mentioned in the fir against the ..... petitioner is maintainable having regard to the provisions of the indian partnership act and there is no specific averment of entrustment to make out a case under section 406 ipc and at best only a civil suit for recovery of money is maintainable. since this court ..... g1 pipes, suguna motors and other brand engines. in accordance with the terms and conditions of the partnership firm, the partnership business was being run and the 2nd respondent is authorised to sign cheques along with the petitioner. since the 2nd respondent tried to take ..... bank, banapuram with apparent collusion with the bank manager contrary to the rules of the bank governing opening/operating of the account of a partnership firm. it is further contended that the petitioner diverted the funds of the firm which were paid by itda officials at eturu nagaram and ..... to the filing of the present writ petition is set out as hereunder:- the petitioner, second respondent and one mr. b. ramesh constitute a registered partnership firm under the name and style of 'm/s. padmavathi engineering company' dealing in purchase and sale of electrical motors, pvc pipes, oil engines, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 11 2001 (HC)

Vizag Medical Stores, Maharanipet, Visakhapatnam Vs. Bharat Heavy Plat ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2002(3)ALD674

..... in part and refusing the application in part. in t. savariraj piliai v. r.s.s. vastrad and company (supra) while dealing with the requirements of section 69 of the indian partnership act, under order xxiii, rule 1(3) of the code of civil procedure, it was held that the non-compliance of requirement of the section 69 of the ..... indian partnership act will render the suit void and permission to withdraw the same with liberty to file a fresh suit cannot be granted. in khatauna and anr. v. ramsewak kashinath, a partnership firm and anr. (supra) it was held that the non-registration of a firm on ..... and ors. v. kancherla veerraju and ors., air 1957 ap 303, somaraju sree kama mohana rao v. somaraju thulasi prasada rao and ors., : air1963ap390 , khatana and anr. v. ramsewak kashinath, partnership firm and anr., : air1986ori1 , t. savarira pillai v. r.s.s. vastrad and company, : air1990mad198 ; and also annapoorna fertilisers and general stores v. arunodaya fertilisers and general stores and anr .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 22 1984 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raj Brothers

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : [1986]158ITR831(AP)

..... .vinayaka cinema : [1977]110itr468(ap) wherein the contention that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, firm stands automatically dissolved under section 42(c) of the indian partnership act was accepted. pursuant to that decision. the income-tax appellate tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that two separate assessments should be made for the two periods, one ..... the income-tax appellate tribunal allowed the assessee's contention that on the death of a partner, dissolution had taken place within the meaning of section 42(c) of the indian partnership act. accordingly, the assessee's claim for two separate assessments was upheld. being aggrieved against the order of the tribunal, the commissioner has come up in reference. 5. this ..... year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. the assessee claimed that on the death of the partner, there is a dissolution of the partnership firm under section 42(c) of the indian partnership act, inasmuch as the partnership deed executed between the partners did not contain an agreement to the contrary. the assessee, therefore, claimed that two separate assessments should be made ..... the accounting year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. 6. that apart, we may refer to the amendment of section 187 by section 33 of the taxation laws (amendment) act, 1984. a proviso was newly inserted to sub-section (2) of section 187 to the following effect : 'provided that nothing contained in clause (a) shall apply to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 10 1999 (HC)

Sri Laxmi Cloth Stores, Vijayawada Krishna Dist. Vs. Ratna and Co., Ma ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1999(6)ALD230; 1999(6)ALT681

..... has been shown in the register of firms as one of the partners of the firm as required in sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act and as such the suit is not maintainable. hence this appeal by the plaintiff.3. the learned counsel for the appellant, placing reliance on the decisions of ..... case where the defendant remains ex parte and no issue is raised with regard to the fulfilment of the conditions prescribed in section 69(2) of the partnership act. the judgment of the division bench relied on by the lower court cannot, therefore, be understood as being contrary to the decisions of the learned single ..... for the purpose of determining the vacant land held by each partner. in that context the division bench merely noticed the provisions of section 69 of the partnership act and observed that as per the said section no suit shall he by or against the firm or its partners unless the firm is registered and unless ..... ex.a1 is the photostat copy of the acknowledgment of registration of firms issued by registrar offirms dated 7-7-1996. ex.a2 is the photostatcopy of partnership deed dated 1-4-1996. ex.a3 is the katha of the defendant in the ledger of the plaintiff for the year 1997-98. ex.a4 is ..... , however, does not bear out this view. the division bench mainly dealt with the question as to how the land held by a partnership firm should be dealt with for the purpose of determining the vacant land held by each partner under the provisions of the urban land (ceiling regulation .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 2013 (HC)

Yousuf Andcompany, Rep. by Its Partner Vs. the Government Ofandhra Pra ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

..... a fresh lease on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. explanation to section 4 stated that for the purposes of act 15 of 1992, notwithstanding anything in the indian partnership act, 1932, the act of a lessee in entering into a partnership agreement or other cognate agreement for carrying on any activity whatsoever on the demised plot shall be deemed to be a violation ..... in w.a.741/1993). thus, in view of the said explanation to section 3 (which provides that where a lessee enters into a partnership agreement in respect of the demised plot, then notwithstanding anything in the indian partnership act, 1932, it shall also be deemed to be in violation of the conditions of the lease), the judgment of the civil court in o ..... common judgment dt.18.08.1994 in w.p.12180/1994 relying on explanation to section 4 in act 15 of 1992 (which stated that where a lessee enters into a partnership agreement in respect of the demised plot, then notwithstanding anything in the indian partnership act, 1932, they shall also be deemed to be in violation of the conditions of the lease).74. the ..... of 1992 (as amended) which treated such assignment as a violation of the conditions of the lease notwithstanding anything contained in the indian partnership act, 1932 (vide goa glass fibre limited v. state of goa and another8) and therefore the respondents are entitled to take into account the conduct of petitioner by 1984 as a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 1960 (HC)

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Bayya Subba Rao and Company

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : [1960]11STC545(AP)

..... its business. it is true that the indian partnership act goes further than the english partnership act, 1890, in recognising that a firm may possess a personality distinct from the persons constituting it; the law in india in that respect being more in accordance ..... the following statement of law contained in bhagwanji morarji v. alembic chemical works ltd. a.i.r. 1948 p.c. 100.:before the board it was argued that, under the indian partnership act, 1932, a firm is recognised as an entity apart from the persons constituting it and that the entity continues so long as the firm exists and continues to carry on ..... narrow significance and not a wide one as is sought to be attributed to it.22. it is pertinent in this context to look at the definition of 'partnership' under the indian partnership act, 1932, also. section 4 of that act recites :'partnership' is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them ..... before their lordships of the supreme court in that case was whether a firm could enter into a partnership with another firm or a joint hindu family or an individual. this was answered in the negative for the reason that section 4 of the indian partnership act contemplates only natural or artificial persons and a firm is not a 'person.' their lordships expressed the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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