Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: chennai Page 1 of about 2,452 results (0.081 seconds)

Nov 09 1990 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nalli Silk Emporium and Another

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1991]192ITR79(Mad)

..... there is, however, no agreement to treat the firm as continuing notwithstanding the death of a partner, the partners have no option to treat the firm as continuing. under the indian partnership act, 1932, the firm gets dissolved and the income-tax officer is not entitled to ignore this consequence. there is nothing in the language of section 187, 188 or 189, ..... by the death of a partner. we have already pointed out that there is no contract contra and, by the force of the operation of section 42(c) of the indian partnership act, on the death of one of the partners on august 4, 1973, the firms stood dissolved. the stand taken by the assessee earlier or later in the course of ..... . on the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted, referring to the provisions of the deeds of partnership and section 42(c) of the indian partnership act, that, on the terms found in the partnership deeds and the application of the provisions of the indian partnership act, the conclusion was irresistible that the firm stood dissolved on the death of one of the partners and that ..... other matters, viz., matters not specifically referred to in the deeds of partnership, the provisions of the indian partnership act shall be applicable. in other words, there is, under the terms of the partnership, no contract to the contrary, as envisaged in section 42(c) of the indian partnership act. section 42(c) of the indian partnership act provides that, subject to contract between the partners, a firm is dissolved .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 25 1968 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Janab N. Hyath Batcha Sahib

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1969]72ITR528(Mad)

..... does not appear to cloud or destroy the identity of the partners whose rights and liabilities vis-a-vis each other are governed by the terms of the partnership and the provisions of the indian partnership act. the members of a firm, from a certain point of view, therefore, remain as co-owners in a limited sense and subject to the terms of the ..... the property, though it is true b, by reason of the transaction, becomes entitled to certain rights which are regulated by the terms of the agreement of partnership, as well as the provisions of the indian partnership act. where the making over of tangible assets, movable or immovable, is by a certain set of persons to an incorporated company in which the same set ..... conclusion on this reasoning. apart from the foregoing, there are other weighty reasons for concurring with the view of the tribunal. section 14 of the indian partnership act shows the different process or methods by which a firm of partnership may come to possess property. the section says ' the property of the firm includes all property and rights and interests in property originally brought ..... in which two or more persons combine their efforts and conjointly apply the same to a commercial or business activity with a view to make profit. section 4 of the indian partnership act makes this explicit and says that a ' partnership ' is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 1996 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shankar Cottons

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1997)137CTR(Mad)583; [1996]222ITR445(Mad)

..... and dumb person. a deaf and dumb person cannot be admitted to the benefits of the partnership as per the provisions of s. 30 of the indian partnership act, 1932. sec. 6 of the indian partnership act, 1932, determines the mode of existence of the partnership. expln. 2 to s. 6 of the indian partnership act states, who are all the persons who can receive a share in the profit of ..... the partnership business without making them as partners. sec. 30 of the indian partnership act states that a person who is a ..... along with the persons carrying on the business. it would mean that a major cannot be admitted to the benefits of partnership. admitting a major as a partner to the benefits of partnership was impliedly prohibited under s. 30 of the indian partnership act, 1932. 7. in view of the abovesaid legal position, we are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the tribunal ..... subject may not be a partner in a firm, but, with the consent of all the partners for the time being, he may be admitted to the benefits of the partnership. therefore, s. 30 of the indian partnership act provides that a minor cannot be a partner in a firm, but a minor can be admitted to the benefits of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 01 1991 (HC)

M/S. Raja theatre, Coimbatore Vs. M/S. Selvam Financiers and Others

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1992Mad227; (1991)IMLJ346

..... second respondent in support of his contention is ex.b8. ex.b8 is the certified copy of form a maintained by the registrar of firms under s. 59 of the indian partnership act relating to the firm raja theatres. ex. x1 is the original of ex.b8. ex.b2 is an application dated 1-3-1989 presented by one kumar to the registrar ..... as early as on 31-12-1978. the agreement as ex. b5 and the certified copy of form 'a' maintained by the registrar of firms under s. 59 of the indian partnership act marked as ex. b.8 in this case will go to show that the first respondent was not having any interest in the ..... there was no consent of all other partners for his retirement. as a result a notice in writing expressing his intention to the partnership act (sic). admittedly such a notice as contemplated in s. 32(1)(c) of the partnership act was not given by the first respondent to the other partners of the firm. in such circumstances, the case of the second respondent ..... /s. raja theatres. ex.a1 shows that the partnership m/s. theatres is a partnership at will. in the case of a partnership at will, a partner can retire from the partnership by giving notice in writing to the other partners as contemplated in s. 31(1)(c) of the partnership act. s. 32(1) of the partnership act provides that a partner may retire with the consent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 09 1964 (HC)

N.Sp.N. Nagappa Chettiar Firm, Madurai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1965Mad424; [1965]56ITR569(Mad)

..... the previous year; and (2), before the end of the previous year in any other case; (b) where the firm is registered under the indian partnership act, 1932, or where the deed of partnership is registered under the indian registration act, 1908 before the end of the previous year of that firm; and (c) where the application is for renewal of registration under rule 6, ..... year of assessment subsequent thereto be made......... (a) where the firm is not registered under the indian partnership act, 1932, or where the deed of partnership is not registered under the indian registration act, 1908 and the application for registration is being made for the first time under the act, (1) within a period of six months of the constitution of the firm or before the ..... assessee could make the application before the end of the previous year. in the other class of cases where the firm is registered under the partnership act or where the deed of partnership is registered under the indian registration act, the application should be made before the end of the previous year.looking at the rule closely, it is seen that there are only ..... really two classes. where the firm had been already in existence in the past, whether it was registered under the partnership act or the deed of partnership had been registered .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 1969 (HC)

Pl. Rm. Arunachalam Chettiar Vs. Controller of Estate Duty

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1970]75ITR28(Mad)

..... in the instant reference.3. the law seems to be so well settled now that it is impossible to accept mr. thyagarajan's proposition mentioned above. section 29 of the indian partnership act, 1932, which deals with the rights of transfer of a partner's interest, lays down by its second sub-section that, if a firm were dissolved the transferee from an ..... is nothing on record to show that there was anything like an administration of the firm's assets and liabilities involving the various steps contemplated by section 48 of the indian partnership act, 1932, before the residue was divided between the sharers, and from this standpoint too, the deceased's interest in his one-fourth share in the firm's assets was ..... of each partner is, in the words of lindley : 'his proportion of the partnership assets after they have been all realised and converted into money, and all the ..... and particularly the following passage in it:'it is abvious that the act contemplates complete liquidation of the assets of the partnership as a preliminary to the settlement of accounts between partners upon dissolution of the firm and it will, therefore, be correct to say that, for the purposes of the indian partnership act, and irrespective of any mutual agreement between the partners, the share .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 17 2001 (HC)

V.V. Textiles Rep. by Its Proprietor S. Baskaran Vs. Mahavir Fabrics R ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2001)3MLJ295

..... ibrahim v. kakka mohammed ghouse sahib, ; and 3. n.a.munavar hussain sahib v. e.r.narayanan,. 12. section 69(2) of the indian partnership act runs as follows: 'effect of non-registration: (2) no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any court by ..... non-registration, which is a specific bar under section 69 of the indianpartnership act?9. mr. s.krishnasamy, learned counsel for the appellant, referred to section 69 of the indian partnership act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') and contended that the suit was not at all maintainable as the requirement under ..... section 69(2) of the act was mandatory. he also relied on the followingjudgments:1. balasore textile distributors association v. indian union, air 1960 ori 1191; ..... the registration of a firm is a condition precedent for the launching of a suit by the firm as per section 69(2) of the partnership act. subsequentregistration cannot cure the defect. (2) the objection regarding non-registration has to be specifically pleaded. once pleaded it is incumbent on the ..... of the firm is a condition precedent to its right to institute a suit of the nature mentioned in section 69(2) the partnership act and that the registration after the inslitution of the suit cannot cure the defect of non-registration before the date of the suit. it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 1975 (HC)

A.D. Jayaveerapandia Nadar and Co. and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1975]101ITR390(Mad)

..... company' but a 'firm', it would be relevant to note the definition of 'firm' under the act. section 2(23) of the act adopts the definition of 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' as defined in the indian partnership act, 1932. section 4 of the partnership act, 1932, is as follows ;' 'partnership' is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by ..... these circumstances, to import the definition of the word 'person' occurring in section 3(42) of the general clauses act, 1897, into section 4 of the indian partnership act will, according to lawyers, english or indian, be totally repugnant to the subject of partnership law as they know and understand to be. it is in this view of the matter that it has been ..... all or any of them acting for all. persons who have entered into partnership with one another are ..... consistently held in this country that a firm as such is not entitled to enter into partnership with another firm or individuals .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 1979 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Abdul Cader Motor Service

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1980)14CTR(Mad)231; [1980]122ITR812(Mad)

..... , though not in the manner contemplated by section 32 of the indian partnership act. even if there is no dissolution, in the case of retirement also the gujarat high court has taken the view, following the decision of the supreme court in cit v ..... actually filed a suit for dissolution. he did not give any notice for retirement. there was no agreement for his retirement. none of the clauses of section 32 of the indian partnership act would apply here. it would thus be a curious case of there being neither dissolution nor retirement. 13. there was actually retirement of the partner, chellappa chettiar, under the decree ..... the case of dissolution, there should have been a preliminary decree and then a final decree as contemplated by the code of civil procedure read with section 44 of the indian partnership act. there could be no partial dissolution ; either the firm is dissolved or it is not. we shall thus proceed on the basis that there was no dissolution. 12. this cannot ..... be strictly called a case of retirement of a partner. under section 32 of the indian partnership act, a partner may retire with the consent of all the other partners or in accordance with an express agreement by the partners, or where the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 03 1996 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kamala Devi

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1997]227ITR701(Mad)

..... . v. cit : [1979]120itr49(sc) , the supreme court, while considering the provisions of sections 2(47), 34(3)(b) and 155(5) of the income-tax act, held as under (headnote) : '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 ..... partnership firm, the partners cannot say that they are the owners of the properties held by the firm. even according to the income-tax ..... court, while considering the provisions of sections 45, 54(i) and 114 of the income-tax act, 1961, section 2 of the finance (no. 2) act, 1967, and section. 14 of the indian partnership act, 1932, held (headnote) : 'that for purposes of assessment to tax, the income-tax act treats a registered firm as an entity distinct from the partners. under the specific provisions of the ..... department submitted that there was no dissolution in the present case. one of the assets of the partnership firm was withdrawn by the partners and later on it was sold by them jointly. according to learned standing counsel, as per the provisions of section 14 of the indian partnership act, the partnership firm is the owner of the property. therefore, during the subsistence of the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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