Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: chennai Year: 1999 Page 1 of about 17 results (0.149 seconds)

Jan 07 1999 (HC)

V.K. Kaliappa Gounder Sons Trading as Sun Beedi Traders Represented by ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-07-1999

Reported in : (1999)2MLJ413

..... v.k. kaliappa gounder issuing the notice under ex.a-16, announcing the retirement of the defendant v.k. subramaniam is neither an act authorised by the indian partnership act nor in adherence of the relevant provisions of law and the entries effected into the records maintained by the office of the registrar of ..... to note that such announcement made beyond the capacity of one partner as against the other partner by notice under section 63(1) of the indian partnership act, is simply accepted and carried out by the registrar of firms, without testifying the validity or legality of such a notice and without conducting any ..... have been given either by the retiring partner or by the other partners or by any other partners, as per section 32(4) of the indian partnership act. thus, the statutory requirements should have been scrupulously observed as far as the alleged retirement of the defendant on 31.3.1978 is concerned. ..... of the new firm.71. so far as the legal position regarding retirement of a partner is concerned, it is enshrined under section 32 of the indian partnership act as given below:section 32. retirement of a partner: (a) a partner may retire - (a) with the consent of all the other partners ..... 9. the defence case as set up by the defendant in the written statement is that, the plaintiff is not a registered firm under the indian partnership act; that this defendant was helping the father v.k. kaliappa gounder as his eldest son and improved the said business; that his father was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 15 1999 (HC)

M/S. K.R.M. Money Lenders Rep by Its Power Agent Karuppiah Vs. Mr. A. ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-15-1999

Reported in : 1999(2)CTC540; (1999)3MLJ51

..... not been established that it is a registered firm and section 69(2) of the indian partnership act is a bar. according to the senior counsel, it has not been established by the plaintiff that it is a registered partnership firm and who are all the partners who have constituted the firm on the relevant ..... or reliefs are different. where the very institution is inherently defective, the very plaint is non est and barred by section 69(2) of the partnership act, this court cannot appreciate the view taken by the first appellate court in this respect that the plaint is valid in respect of other defendants and ..... that the registration of the firm is a condition precedent to its right to institute a suit of the nature mentioned in section (2) of the partnership act and that the registration after the institution of the suit cannot cure the defect of non registration before the date of the suit. it follows from ..... the suit filed by the appellant on the question of maintainability in view of the provision of sub section (2) of section 69 of the partnership act by confirming the view taken by the trial court and the high court. the supreme court further held that though the plaint was amended on a ..... the registration of a firm is a condition precedent to its right to institute a suit of the nature mentioned in sec 69 (2) of the partnership act and that the registration after the institution of the suit cannot cure the defect of non registration before the date of the suit. in this respect ar .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 1999 (HC)

Somu and Somu Vessels Merchant Anupparapalayam Vs. C. Arumugham

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-01-1999

Reported in : (1999)2MLJ623

..... discrepancy alone cannot be a ground to non-suit the plaintiff14. for the reasons stated above, i hold that the suit is maintainable under section 69(3)(a) of the indian partnership act. the substantial questions of law nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff. on substantial question of law no. 3, i hold that the suit is not ..... the suit is not maintainable by reason of the provisions contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act?2. whether by virtue of the provisions contained in section 69(3)(a) of the indian partnership act, is not the suit maintainable for the suit claim?3. whether the lower appellate court is right in holding the suit as barred ..... registered. relying upon the above fact, it is contended by the defendant that the suit is not maintainable under section 69(2) of indian partnership act.7. it is no doubt true that under section 69(1) of the act, no suit to enforce right arising from a contact shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of any person suing as ..... in the plaint that the plaintiff's firm has been duly registered. the suit is hit by section 69 of the indian partnership act. the suit is barred by limitation. the transaction were one of sale and purchase. therefore, the debt relief act will not extend the period of limitation. the defendant is not an agriculturist. the copy of the accounts shows that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 1999 (HC)

Salem Chit Funds and Financiers Association Represented by Its Secreta ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-05-1999

Reported in : 1999(1)CTC373; (1999)IIMLJ46

..... filed the above writ petition. 3. the respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that under powers delegated in section 71(1) and (2) of the indian partnership act, the government of tamil nadu in g.o.ms no.747 commercial taxes and religious endowments department dated 27.12.1990 have framed rule 3-a to prescribing a declaration ..... follows: ' annexure notificationin exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and (2) of section 71 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (central act ix of 1932) the governor of tamil nadu hereby makes the following rules to the tamil nadu partnership (registration of firms) rules 1932. the same having been previously published as required by sub-section (3) of section 71 ..... the case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: the members of the association consists of registered partnership firms and individuals, carrying on business in chit funds and financing in salem district. most of the members of the association are partnership firms. the partnership act does not prescribe or provide for the necessity of filing any declaration form by a registered firm, for ..... its continuance after the registration of such firm under section 59 of the act. under section 61, the firm has to send intimation to the registrar .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 08 1999 (HC)

Bapu Pillai and anr. Vs. Supdt. Engineer, Madurai Electricity System, ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-08-1999

Reported in : AIR1999Mad246

..... , the manufacturer of the transformer was impleaded as a party to the suit. according to the fourth defendant, the claim of the plaintiff was barred under section 69 of the indian partnership act and the fourth defendant was an unnecessary party. according to the fourth defendant the transformer was sold to madurai electricity system of the tamil nadu electricity board and the fourth ..... pleaded that there was no proper maintenance and that it was only due to the negligence of defendants 1 to 3. it is also pleaded that the accident was an act of god and therefore, the fourth defendant cannot be held liable. the fourth defendant also pleaded that they were unnecessary party, having been brought on record without proper notice and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 1999 (HC)

Seeniammal Alias Indirani Vs. Piramasankari Alias Kamalam and 7 Others

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-09-1999

Reported in : 1999(2)CTC13; (1999)IIMLJ440

..... body corporate, a charitable or religious institution or an unincorporate company or association or any firm as defined in the indian partnership act, 1932 (central act 9 of 1932)as per section 3(d) of act of 1980, the term:' 'debtor' means any person from whom any debt is due and whose annual household ..... property the entirety of the interest should be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether they are debtors within the meaning of the act (act 36 of 1972) is correct or not.'6. the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff/decree holder submitted that the reference made by the ..... '.'13. on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that if the original debtor father is entitled to the benefit of act 13 of 1980, the legal representatives are also entitled to the said benefits, but, when the original debtors is not entitled to, then his legal ..... . the question was whether the defendants are entitled to the benefit of the act.4. on consideration the learned single judge of this court, found that the decision of a single judge in lakshmi ammal and others v. sundaramurthy ..... defendants, the finding regarding execution of the decree was upheld. however, it was held that the defendants are entitled to the benefit of tamil nadu act 13 of 1980 as they constitute three different families. the plaintiff filed the second appeal, against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 09 1999 (HC)

Rajeswari and Another Vs. Sri Buvaneswari Cycle Mart

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-09-1999

Reported in : 2000(1)CTC156

..... 1978 (ii) alt 451 as follows:- 'the suit does not abate on the death of the managing partner. a partner by virtue of section 19 of the partnership act and much so, a managing partner, can represent such a firm in the suit. therefore, when he dies, the new managing partner can be brought on record ..... a partner but also the managing partner of the firm who manages the business and affairs of the firm. therefore, by virtue of section 19 of the partnership act, he has the implied authority to institute the suit. the provisions of rule 1, order 30, cpc will have to be read in the light of ..... section 19 of the partnership act'8. section 19 of the partnership act, reads as follows:- ' subject to the provisions of section 22, the act of a partner which is done to carry on, in the usual way, business of the kind carried on ..... short cause title to read that the firm is represented by a different person as managing partner. 4. section 4 of the partnership act defines partnership. one of the essential requisite of a partnership is that there must be mutual agency between the agreement that it must be carried on by all or any of the partners ..... abraham george, 1953 tr. co.163. 10. order 30, rule 4 of the code reads as follows:- ' notwithstanding anything contained in section 45 of the indian contract act, 1872, where two or more person may sue or be sued in the name of a firm under the foregoing provisions and any of such person dies, whether .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 1999 (HC)

Vijay Hemant Finance and Estates Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-19-1999

Reported in : [1999]238ITR282(Mad)

..... among the partners in accordance with the shares of the partners as specified in the deed of partnership. in these circumstances, the mere omission to state the shares of the partners in column 6 of the schedule to the application cannot be ..... was in existence and it was evidenced by an instrument in writing and the shares of the partners are specified in the instrument of partnership. the instrument of partnership was also appended to the application. it is not the case of the department that the profits of the firm have not been divided ..... out by the accountant member of the tribunal. the income-tax officer cannot take advantage of the absence of a provision of law under the indian income-tax act of 1922 and refuse registration to a firm for some defects he has detected in the application for registration. it is, in our opinion, ..... firm.'the above decision of the andhra pradesh high court on the construction of registration provisions in the indian income-tax act, in my view, would equally apply to the interpretation of section 194a of the act. in my view, it is not open to the income-tax officer to take advantage of ..... as constituting the basic assumption underlying the statutory provision.'the above observation of the supreme court is relevant for the construction of section 194a of the act and to avoid hardship and unjust result that may flow against the person filing the declaration, the requirement of granting an opportunity to the said .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 08 1999 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Srinivas and Co.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-08-1999

Reported in : (1999)155CTR(Mad)242

..... it was assessed on him personally and there is no scope to make any deduction from the share income in respect of any part of the partnership profits having arisen outside british india. the privy council also pointed out the practical difficulties that may be encountered in determining the total income of the ..... determined on the total income at a progressive rate and if the partner's share income alone is assessed to tax in the hands of a partnership firm, it may not result in a proper assessment of the share income as the tax would be assessed at a lower rate than the proper ..... partner is now assessed at a progressive rate does not warrant any different interpretation to be placed on the provisions contained in s. 182(3) of the act, 1961. further, the decision of the privy council was followed by this court in gnanam & sons case (supra) and also by the supreme court, ..... expected to furnish the income particulars of the non-resident partner to the officer assessing the firm. therefore, the provisions of s. 182(3) of the act, 1961, in our opinion, do not contemplate an elaborate procedure of demanding from the firm or from a non-resident partner to submit the requisite particulars ..... on the words found in the s. 182(3) of the act, 1961, viz., 'if it were assessed on him personally' and submitted that under relevant provisions of the indian it act, 1922 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the act 19221 and also under the act, 1961, though initially for some years, the maximum rate of tax .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 09 1999 (HC)

Indian Bank Rep. by Its Manager, Royapettah, Chennai-14 Vs. M.S. Habib ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-09-1999

Reported in : [2001]106CompCas654(Mad); 2000(1)CTC88

..... from 11th january, 1971 pay interest on savings accounts opened in the name of any trading or business concern whether such concern is a proprietary or a partnership firm, a company or an association.'6. the plaintiff is a proprietary concern. the savings account was opened with the defendant bank by the plaintiff's ..... is not well-settled as far as our country is concerned. for, the law in this regard issaid to be governed by section 72 of the indian contract act. but, the section does not indicate the application of the rule of estoppel in such cases. as to what are the circumstances that would preclude the ..... defendant, the amount was credited by mistake and therefore, they are entitled to refund of the same. in this connection, section 72 of the indian contract act is relied upon. while the trial court had accepted the plea of the bank, the lower appellate court found that section 72 of the ..... on the part of the bank to have effected a reversal entry. such an action is arbitrary. the bank cannot rely upon section 72 of the contract act to claim the amount. hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be entertained.15. it is to be pointed out that the apex ..... chosen to give interest to the plaintiff. therefore, in view of the circular issued by the reserve bank of india, under section 35 of the banking regulation act, the plaintiff is not entitled to be paid interest on that account. therefore, here, it is not a mistake of fact that has been committed by the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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