Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: andhra pradesh Year: 2003 Page 1 of about 12 results (0.052 seconds)

Mar 03 2003 (HC)

Bhangaru Packaging Co., Rep. by Its Proprietor, M. Madhusudan Rao Vs. ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-03-2003

Reported in : 2003(1)ALD(Cri)679; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)497; III(2003)BC352; 2003CriLJ2498

..... the petitioner has no application to the present set of facts, because in that case the complainant-firm was not at all registered under the indian partnership act by the date of issuance of the cheque therein. 8. the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations in the ..... reliance can be placed upon this document at this stage for the simple reason that it was not registered as required under the provisions of the indian partnership act. so, by the date of issuance of the cheque in question, whether marvel organics was registered or not has to be decided at the ..... firm was entered in the registrar of firms on 27.8.1991 and, therefore, there is no bar under the provisions of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act. therefore, he prays, the petition be dismissed. 4. a division bench of this court has held in amit desai v. m/s. shine enterprises, ..... from the cause-title of the complaint, marwel organics-complainant is represented by its managing partner, daggubati srinivas prasad. in the copy of the unregistered partnership deed, dated 2.6.2001, it is stated that daggubati srinivasa prasad and mallela koteswara rao, father of mallela vasu, had been carrying on ..... the 1st respondent-firm was not competent to file the complaint because it was unregistered, and that the person whose name was shown in the partnership deed was not the managing partner of the 1st respondent-firm, and therefore the proceedings are liable to be quashed. learned counsel for the 1st .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 28 2003 (HC)

Ponnaganti Kondaiah Vs. Mallela Subba Rao (Died) Per Lrs and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-28-2003

Reported in : 2004(5)ALT505

..... inclined to make this order of remand in the interest of justice after taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration especially in the light of the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 and also the factual controversy between the parties. in view of the findings recorded above, this court need not further dwell upon the other evidentiary details in detail.13 ..... were made relating to the nature of the document ex.b-1. however, the said question need not be gone into in the light of the different provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932.12. elaborate submissions were made relating to the reversal of the finding by the appellate court. where one fact finding court, the trial court, recorded a particular finding on ..... firm --whether an existing firm or an erstwhile firm - have been fighting this litigation. it is needless to say that the parties would be governed by the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932. apart from this aspect of the matter, the appellate court had framed a very cryptic point for consideration, but however dealt with all evidentiary details and had pointed out ..... a very small business. it is unfortunate that though the business is small, the parties have been litigating the matter for sufficiently a long time.11. section 69 of the indian partnership act deals with effect of non-registration. sub-section (1) of section 69 specifies as hereunder:'no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 13 2003 (HC)

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

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-13-2003

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!

Nov 07 2003 (HC)

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

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-07-2003

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!

Jan 20 2003 (HC)

Sivaramakrishna Traders Vs. Kamal Traders

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-20-2003

Reported in : 2003(2)ALD375; 2003(2)ALT626

..... just making certain observations doubting the documents marked on behalf of the appellant without any substantial reason. the learned counsel also had taken me through the different provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 and had also submitted that even as per the admission made in the caveat lodged by the respondent before the principal junior civil judge, amalapuram, it is clear ..... that the respondent has nothing to do with the appellant-firm. the learned counsel also pointed out that the learned district judge had not appreciated -the different provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 in proper perspective. it was further contended that the dispute relating to 'double kamal' involved in the present case, in the facts and circumstances of the case, ..... appellant-firm is not in dispute at all and the learned counsel also hadpointed out the peculiar stand now taken by the respondent that since the procedural formalities under the indian partnership act, 1932 had not been followed, the respondent is having a right to use the same trade mark of the appellant-firm. the learned counsel also had pointed out to ..... concept of dissolution, the concept of retirement and also had specifically drawn my attention to sections 9, 32 and 36 of the indian partnership act, 1932, hereinafter referred to as 'act' for the purpose of convenience. the learned counsel also had submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case directing the respondent to maintain accounts during the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 12 2003 (HC)

Sharda Finance Corporation Vs. L. Laxman Goud and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-12-2003

Reported in : 2004(1)ALD(Cri)596; IV(2004)BC244

..... 2. the brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be stated as follows :the complainant is a registered partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act, 1952 and has been doing money lending business at gadwal. the complainant obtained the money lending licence on 4.11.1992. the ..... on the other hand, pw-1 categorically stated that he is the managing partner of m/s. sarada finance corporation, which is registered under the partnership act. the said statement is not specifically denied or disputed in the cross-examination. it is not specifically suggested to him that he is not the ..... 1 (jhade swayam prakash) is not authorized to file criminal proceedings on behalf of the complainant company. ex. p-9 is the copy of the partnership deed. as seen from this document, pw-1 and another person by name g. jeeweshwar are, empowered to represent the firm before all the authorities ..... elicited to discard the testimony of pw-1. ex. p-8 is the certified copy of acknowledgement of firm registration, ex. p-9 is the partnership deed and ex. p-10 is the certified copy of money lending licence.9. pw-2 is the manager of andhra bank. he stated that ..... , gadwal whereunder the accused-respondent no. 1 herein was acquitted for the offence punishable under section 138 read with section 142 of the negotiable instruments act on two grounds. firstly, that the complainant-appellant failed to establish that the cheque in question was issued by the accused towards discharge of legally .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2003 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B. Narasimha Rao

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-31-2003

Reported in : 2003(4)ALT244; (2003)185CTR(AP)219; [2003]263ITR62(AP)

..... income of the spouse, minor child, etc., even after admission of the minor child of such individual to the benefits of partnership in a firm.15. it is clear from the reading of section 182 itself that a non-resident indian is not intended to be treated as a substantive separate class. there is no separate scheme as such. there is no ..... be made on the firm and the tax recovered from the firm itself. the tribunal, relying upon section 2(23) of the act, came to the conclusion that the minor who has been admitted to the benefits of partnership is also to be treated as a partner. the tribunal by reading the said two provisions together came to the conclusion that in ..... included in the hands of the non-resident assessee in his individual assessment under section 64(1)(iii) of the act ?'2. master rajesh kumar and master kartik kumar, minor sons of b. narasimha rao, have been admitted to the benefits of partnership in the firm of b. rajesh and company, hyderabad. the said b. narasimha rao and his two minor children ..... were, at the relevant time, residing in united states of america and treated as 'non-residents' for the purpose of the indian income-tax act, 1922.3. the income-tax officer assessed the share .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 2003 (HC)

Vel White Horse Distellries Pvt. Ltd., Reptd. by Its Managing Director ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-23-2003

Reported in : 2003(4)ALD189

..... second respondent pursuant to g.o.ms. no. 552, dated 1-7-1997 may be extracted.form d-2(see rule 5)distillery licence (for spirits and indian liquor) licence no. 27 dated: 25-7-1997 i, sri a.k. goel, commissioner of excise under the provisions of andhra pradesh distilleries rules, 1970 ..... brief is as follows. the third respondent is a proprietary concern which was initially granted a distillery licence in form d-2 of the rules to manufacture indian liquor, wine, whisky, brandy, zin and rum. the licence issued on 2-8-1982 was renewed for 1982-83. the fourth respondent could not commence ..... is irrational, but in the sense that it is unreasonable violating article 14 of the constitution of india. in support of this, a reference may be made to indian express newspapers (bombay) p. ltd. v. union of india, : [1986]159itr856(sc) and maharashtra s.b.o.s. & h.s. education v. paritosh, : ..... in the name and style of m/s. vel white horse distilleries pvt. ltd., a partnership deed was also entered into on 27-6-1989. subsequently, the said partnership concern was converted into an incorporated company under the companies act, wherein petitioner no. 2 and respondent no. 4 were directors. the petitioners allege that as ..... [1985]1scr29 .13. in indian express newspapers (bombay) p. ltd. v. union of india (supra), it was observed:14. a piece of subordinate legislation does not carry the same degree of immunity .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 06 2003 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gudivada Ramachandra Rao

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-06-2003

Reported in : (2004)187CTR(AP)543; [2004]265ITR668(AP)

..... to have failed or omitted to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment within the meaning of section 34(1)(a) of the indian income-tax act, 1922.'8. the supreme court further observed (page 630) : 'we do not think, for reasons already discussed, that this decision lays down ..... (1), must include every item of income which goes to make up his total income assessable under the act. the amounts representing the shares of the spouse and minor child in the profits of the partnership firm would be part of 'his income' for the purpose of assessment of tax and would have to ..... there is a separate column providing that 'income arising to spouse/minor child or any other person as referred to in chapter v of the act' should be shown separately under that column and consequently there is no longer any scope for arguing that the assessee is not bound to disclose such ..... portion thereof from the knowledge of the income-tax authorities. in the result, the appellate tribunal came to the conclusion that there is no deliberate act on the part of the assessee. the appellate tribunal referred to the meaning of concealment in various dictionaries in the process of arriving at its conclusion ..... officer did not accept the plea put forth by the assessee and accordingly held that the omission to disclose the income under section 64(1) of the act amounts to concealment. thus the penalty was levied.5. the income-tax appellate tribunal vide its order dated september 25, 1990, in i.t.a. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 2003 (HC)

Vijay Prakash Vijay Varge and anr. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. b ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-24-2003

Reported in : 2003(1)ALD(Cri)397; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)534; 2003CriLJ2631

..... of the goods by filing declaration before the sale tax authorities, that a2 and a3 being the partners of a1-partnership firm, were responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the partnership firm, and that after receiving the goods with the knowledge that they would be responsible for payment, the accused cheated ..... section 156(3) cr.p.c. for investigation. the case was registered as crime no. 453/2002 under sections 408, 418 and 420 of the indian penal code. to quash the said crime, a2 and a3 filed the present petition.3. learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon dr. sharda prasad sinha ..... the sales tax authorities. in spite of repeated requests, the accused did not clear the bills with a view to avoid liability. so, the acts committed by the accused are prima facie dishonest intention so as to cheat the complainant. at the request of the accused the goods were supplied on ..... that a person had fraudulent intention at the time of making the promise to say that he committed an act of cheating. a mere failure to keep up promise cannot be presumed as an act leading to cheating. there is no allegation in the complaint that the accused had dishonest intention, i.e ..... the complainant causing wrongful loss to it and therefore the accused committed the offences punishable under sections 409, 418 and 420 of the indian penal code.12. section .....

Tag this Judgment!


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