Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: chennai Year: 1952 Page 1 of about 8 results (0.043 seconds)

Apr 09 1952 (HC)

R. Hanumanthappa and Son Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-09-1952

Reported in : AIR1953Mad209; [1952]22ITR364(Mad); (1952)2MLJ742

..... early as 20-3-1940 under section 58(1), mysore partnership act, before the registrar of mysore and therefore no question of its genuineness arises. apparently, this document was executed after the mysore companies act came into force which contains similar provisions regarding managing agency agreement as the indian companies act in which the amendments were introduced in 1936. as the ..... of his birth and therefore we are unable to state whether this boy was in existence on the date on which the managing agency agreement was entered into.under the indian companies act, as interpreted by this court in -- 'murugappa chetti. and sons. v. commr. of income-tax, madras', : [1952]21itr311(mad) a joint family as such cannot enter ..... deed of partnership makes it clear that the income earned by these two ..... assessment which is now under consideration is long after the date of this partnership deed, whatever the position might have been before 1940, this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 13 1952 (HC)

In Re: Kakarla Narasayya

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-13-1952

Reported in : AIR1953Mad516; (1953)IMLJ290

..... doubt as to whom the property belongs.10. in the instant case the bona fide claim of right is set up on the foot of a partnership. in a partnership each partner is part owner of the business in the same way as each member of a joint family is a co-owner in the family ..... property for his own benefit as any other co-owner; --'suganchand & co. v. laduram balakisandas', air 1941 nag 105 (zl). this assertion of a partnership seems to be something more than a colourable pretence as it is supported by the evidence of three witnesses who have not been discredited by both the courts below ..... be taken in the name of undisclosed persons or by unregistered firms and that the business was actually carried on by reason of an agreement as a partnership. there is no point in saying that this is an invention and afterthought because the accused can put forward this defence only when he appears before ..... mens rea requisite for an offence under section 379, is set out in the section itself and we cannot travel beyond it. so it is not the indian law, and even as an english rule it rejects a mere pretention unless it was bona fide; and presumably there can be no bona fide claim if ..... business and the business must be carried on by all or any of the partners acting for all : --'suganmal v. mt. umraobi', air 1938 nag 550, at p. 553(a) and --'tajammul hussain v. ahmed ali', (b). this agreement necessary for creation of a partnership may be either express or implied : --'mirza mal v. rameshar : air1929all536 ; .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 25 1952 (HC)

S.S.K. Haja AllaudIn Maracair Ammapatnam Vs. the Commissioner of Incom ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-25-1952

Reported in : AIR1953Mad824; [1952]22ITR545(Mad); (1953)IMLJ323

satyanarayana rao, j.1. the following question has been referred to us by the income-tax appellate tribunal under section 66(1), indian income-tax act:'whether there was evidence to hold that the partnership constituted by the deed dated 13-1-1944 was not genuine.'one s. s. k. haja allauddin maracair carried on business in piece goods at colombo from the year ..... the assessment year. it has been represented to us on behalf of the assessee by mr. viswanatha iyer that there was also an application to register the partnership under section 26a of the act and that application is kept pending till this reference has been answered by us.2. the point for consideration therefore is whether the view taken by the appellate ..... if they did it as a matter of course. they obtained an affidavit from the father himself to support the statements in the deed of partnership. it is on that information that they acted and registered the partnership deed.the next circumstance is that the deed itself was attested by the notary public and therefore no doubt can be cast upon the existence ..... of the deed on the date which it purports to have come into existence. as regards the reality of the partnership as pointed out above, there are .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 1952 (HC)

C.S. Hajee Mohamed Ibrahim and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-07-1952

Reported in : AIR1953Mad221; [1952]22ITR324(Mad); (1954)IMLJ653

..... the contrary conclusion rather than supporting the view of the department. that there were dissensions was recited in the deed of dissolution of partnership and was also proved by the statement of chellikani rowther. it is difficult to understated what the tribunal meant when it said ..... partnership by these new partnerships^ it is the right of every individual to enter into a partnership, to get it dissolved and to constitute new partnerships and merely because the partnership happened to be dissolved and the new partnerships were brought into existence at a time when the excess profits tax act ..... the indian income-tax act the following question was referred to this court for decision by the appellate tribunal, viz.,"whether on' the facts and circumstances of this case the dissolution of the firm of hajee mohammed ibrahim and co. in 1941 and the formation of two partnerships each consisting ..... was in force, from that circumstance itself it cannot be inferred that the motive and object of the person so acting was ..... of two of the partners of the old firm at erode and salem were entered into with the main purpose of avoiding or reducing liability to excess profits tax."the question referred to us has to be decided with reference to the language of section 10-a of the excess profits tax act .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 15 1952 (HC)

Mrs. D.M. Alexander Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-15-1952

Reported in : AIR1953Mad166; [1952]22ITR379(Mad)

..... of estates was an adventurein the nature of trade. but the purchase andsale of the umbidikhan estate at the sameperiod, though it was in partnership withanother, is a relevant piece of evidence to beconsidered in conjunction with the other piecesof evidence on record.24. we feel that there was ..... co. in transactionsdealing with land in which firm mr. bibbeywas not a partner, is no evidence uponwhich anybody could come to the conclusionthat a partnership or joint adventure existingbetween cooksey and bibbey can be provedto be established for purposes of trade.'it must be observed that it was not a rule ..... and 1925 the firm in which cooksey was a partner purchased and developed three housing estates, arid from 1930 to 1940 cooksey and bibbey in partnership bought and developed five housing estates. it was admitted that these were trading transactions for income-tax purposes. in 1938 cooksey and bibbey sold ..... in march 1943 by the assessee and mr. cameron to the southern plantations ltd. calicut, mr. mayer executed the sale deed under directions of the partnership directly in favour of the southern plantations ltd., calicut. the assessee's share of the profit of rs. 30,000 was treated as income and ..... if he is shown to have carried on a business of buying and selling lands. business has been defined by section 2 (4) of the indian income-tax act. 'business includes any trade, commerce, or manufacture or any adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture.' even a single .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 20 1952 (HC)

Venkatanarasimha Charyulu Peddinti Vs. Rayasam Gangamma Pantulu and or ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-20-1952

Reported in : AIR1954Mad258; (1953)IIMLJ31

..... air1925mad209 and -- 'kumara-swamiah v. krishna reddi', air 1947 mad 84 '(b). in fact this is what is happening every day in partition suits and partnership suits. in these suits a preliminary decree as well as a final decree have got to be passed and appeals have to be preferred from both. it is ..... appropriating it to their own use. the learned judges appear not to have had in their minds the statement of the law in sections 63 and 64, indian trusts act, 1882.'the principle above stated, namely, that a trustee cannot acquire title by adverse possession of the trust property, applies equally to 'quasi' or constructive ..... they were the hereditary archakas of the temple. they paid a fixed court-fee of rs. 100 under article 17-a of schedule ii, court-fees act valuing the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction at rs. 3,600. on an objection taken to the correctness of the valuation the learned subordinate judge ..... account at the time of the disposal of the previous civil revision petition and it may be mentioned here that this view of the matter has since been acted upon by a bench of this court in -- 'ku-maraswamiah v. krishna reddi', air 1947 mad 84 (b) which reaffirmed the principle that when ..... rao that as result of the petitioner's inability to pay the court-fee within the extended time fixed by the lower court, the suit was dismissed. acting on the prin-ciple of the decision of wallace j. in --'manickam pillai v. mahudam bathummal' : air1925mad209 , i must set aside the decree of dismissal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 1952 (HC)

A.Vr.V. Vellayappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-ta ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-04-1952

Reported in : AIR1953Mad374; [1952]22ITR292(Mad); (1952)2MLJ552

..... assessment, it is made clear that this property was not purchased in lieu of discharge of debts of the money-lending business but purchased independently from the funds of the partnership. it is no doubt true that the income was included in the profits of the business, but that does not, in our opinion, make any difference as the property acquired ..... -trade of the business. but from the beginning the firm treated this as an investment and had no idea of ever selling this property until 1946 when the future of indian business in ceylon became uncertain and the firm was obliged to wind up its money-lending business in ceylon and return back to india. 4. it is contended on behalf .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 07 1952 (HC)

Jaya Bharat Tile Works, Samalkot, Madras State Represented by Its Part ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-07-1952

Reported in : AIR1953Mad30; (1954)ILLJ286Mad; (1952)2MLJ547

..... labour appellate tribunal of india made in app. no. 176 of 1951.2. the petitioner is the jaya bharat tile works, samalkot. it is a partnership business of which madapati satti reddi is a partner. the business was started in the year 1949. on 6th december 1948, the government of madras referred ..... in respect of closure of the factory. in support of that contention he strongly relied upon a judgment of a division bench of this court in the --'indian metal & metallurgical corporation v. industrial tribunal', madras, 1952 mad. l. j. 481. there the petitioner was a firm carrying on business of manufacture of ..... strictly so called between an employer and an employee, as regards the continuance of the business itself. this question was completely outside the industrial disputes act, and we hold that the reference by the government was without jurisdiction and consequently the award was bad.'the learned judges in that case were not ..... of the questions raised was whether the closure of the factory from 17th february was justified. the learned judges after considering the provisions of the act and the case law on the subject came to the following conclusion:'we hold therefore that the award in so far as it directs the petitioner ..... of reprisal or as an instrument of coercion or as a mode of exercising pressure on the employees or generally speaking when his act is what may be called an act of belligerency than would be a lock-out. if on the other hand, he shuts down his work because he cannot .....

Tag this Judgment!

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