Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: chennai Year: 2007 Page 1 of about 24 results (0.063 seconds)

Apr 20 2007 (HC)

B. Narashimha Rao Vs. T. Raghavalu Naidu and Company, Rep. by Its Part ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-20-2007

Reported in : 2007(3)CTC356; (2007)3MLJ641

..... which has been entered into between him and the partners of the reconstituted firm. in this connection, it will be relevant to extract section 32 of the indian partnership act, 1932. section 32 of the said act reads as follows:32. retirement of a partner.-- (1) a partner may retire,--(a) with the consent of all the other partners,(b) in accordance with an ..... been instituted by the respondent against the firm and the petitioner is perfectly valid.(b) as per section 32(3) of the indian partnership act, 1932 (hereinafter called 'the act'), the partners continue to be liable to third parties if any act done by them prior to their retirement.(c) the petitioner has not given any notice as contemplated under section 72 of the said ..... the petitioner retired from the firm on 1.8.2001. hence, the petitioner, in spite of the fact that he has retired from the partnership firm on 1.8.2001, is liable to third parties for any act of the firm done before his retirement. since the petitioner has retired from the firm only on 1.8.2001, subsequent to the cause ..... express agreement by the partners, or(c) where the partnership is at will, by giving notice in writing to all the other partners of his intention to retire.(2) a retiring partner may be discharged from any liability to any third party for acts of the firm done before his retirement by an agreement made by him with .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 03 2007 (HC)

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - Ii Vs. Engineer ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-03-2007

Reported in : [2008]297ITR386(Mad)

..... or a company or any other public body or any association of persons or any body of individuals. the act adopts the definition of the terms 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' as contained in the indian partnership act, 1932. each partner is an agent of another.but the above said dictum will not be applicable to the ..... not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the learned first appellate judge in discharging a2 to a9 (a4 and a6 died). admittedly a1-partnership firm is responsible for the concealment of the income of rs. 2,20,000/- for which a1 (represented by managing partner s.ramesh) necessarily to ..... counsel would rely on the deposition of p.w.3 in the cross-examination to the effect that thiru.sampath is the managing partner of a1-partnership firm and that even during his investigation sampath was not alive, but a2 has given a statement to the effect that he is responsible for ..... no. ii, income tax commissioner, coimbatore division, against the accused under section 226(c) and 227 of the income tax act and also under section 193 and 196 of the ipc. the learned sessions judge has discharged the accused on two grounds. the learned sessions judge would state that the income tax ..... department has levied penalty for an offence contemplated under section 297(c)(1) of the income tax act for concealment of income by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 14 2007 (HC)

Mohan Jewellery Vs. Vummidi Bangaru Mohan Jewellers

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-14-2007

Reported in : LC2007(3)402

..... , the relief is sought for.3. the defendant has contended that the suit is not maintainable in the absence of registration of the firm as per the provisions of the indian partnership act. the defendant denies that the plaintiffs have honestly conceived and adopted the trade mark and trading style 'mohan jewellery'. the defendant hails from a leading family of jewellers carrying on ..... business in madras for over several decades. mohan is a common south indian name. none can take copyright in such a common name. this defendant, at any rate, is named as mohan. thus, the defendant is honestly using his name for doing his ..... institution of the suit, the plaintiffs are deemed to have got registration of their trade mark 'mohan jewellery'.10. of course, as per section 27 of the trade and merchandise act, 1958, no person shall be entitled to institute any proceedings to prevent the infringement of unregistered trade mark. as the trade mark of the plaintiffs has been registered the very ..... 'mohan jewellery' since 15.11.1961. the plaintiffs have become distinctive. they have spent considerable amounts and efforts for promoting the sales of their jewellery under the trade and merchandise act, 1958. the plaintiffs were shocked to see an advertisement in the hindu on 11.6.1992 announcing the inauguration of the shop ummidi bangaru mohan jewellers at annanagar. the defendants .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 09 2007 (HC)

Mars Incorporated Represented by Power of Attorney Agent, Mr. A. Aruls ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-09-2007

Reported in : LC2007(1)384; 2007(34)PTC642(Mad)

..... mars as its trade mark in india. it is admitted by the defendant that mares was initially a partnership firm and subsequently became a private limited company with the name mares confectionery pvt. ltd., a company incorporated under the indian companies act. d.w.1 has admitted that after incorporation of the defendant company, they started manufacturing lollipops. in ..... government of india, ministry of commerce and industry order no. 17/55 dated 7.12.1955, as subsequently amendment issued under the imports and exports (central) act 1947 (xviii of 1947). the partnership firm mares subsequently became a private limited company, with the name 'mares confectioneries private limited. clause iii(a) of the memorandum of association of mares confectioneries ..... under the indian companies act, 1956, even before the plaintiff had acquired the trade mark mars. hence, he prays dismissal of the suit.8. on the basis of the above pleadings, the ..... impact either in madras or the rest of india. plaintiff acquired the trade mark 'mars' only in may 1983, while the defendant had been registered under the indian companies act even prior to the above date. plaintiff cannot prevent the defendant from functioning under the corporate name mares confectioneries private limited, especially as the same had been incorporated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 2007 (HC)

Gea Energy System India Ltd. Vs. Germanischer Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-27-2007

Reported in : [2009]149CompCas689(Mad)

..... of interim injunction in the face of the negative covenant found in the joint venture agreement as per section 42 of the specific relief act. if the respondents are permitted to carry on similar business with the partnership of a third party, the joint venture business with certain terms and conditions commenced by the applicants and the respondents would be completely mined ..... to establish such a merger. therefore, the applicants are not supposed to take cognisance of such a merger that had taken place behind their back.19. section 27 of the indian contract act, 1872, reads as follows:27. agreement in restraint of trade void.--every agreement by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind ..... the agreement which gives the joint venture company exclusive right of operation within the territory of india is a restraint of trade within the meaning of section 27 of the indian contract act and will have effect only during the operation of the agreement and not after termination of the agreement. since the agreement is terminable and is also in restraint of ..... would not in any way jeopardise the interests of the existing joint venture or technology/trademark partner orother stakeholders would lie equally on the foreign investor/technology supplier and the indian partner.16. unless prior approval of the government of india is obtained by the foreign investor who has established a joint venture business, it cannot float a new business in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 02 2007 (HC)

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Taj Borewells

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-02-2007

Reported in : [2007]291ITR232(Mad)

..... v. commissioner of income-tax : [1996]218itr508(all) , the allahabad high court considered the scope of section 68 of the act. in that case, the assessee is a partnership firm. there were ten partners in the firm and they made capital contribution totalling to rs. 1,43,000/-. since this was ..... gains of the business, that has nothing whatever to do with the allowance that can be granted under section 10(2)(vii) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, if such accounts are available in which the relevant entry with regard to the allowance appears, that would be sufficient compliance with ..... keep any accounts, the allowance was rightly refused. the court found that though there is no indication in section 10(2)(vii) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, as to the particular type of account book which should be maintained by the assessee, if accounts are produced, in which the ..... had been maintained. the supreme court, in cit v. national syndicate : [1961]41itr225(sc) , dealing with section 10(2)(vii) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, laid down that in order to claim deduction of the loss sustained under that provision, one of the essential conditions to be fulfilled was ..... relevant entry with regard to the allowance appeared, that would be sufficient compliance with the first proviso to section 10(2)(vii) of the indian income-tax act, 1922. in that case, the assessee produced before the assessing authority the daily collection and expenditure account and notwithstanding the absence of a day .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 2007 (HC)

N.R. Mahesh Vs. N. Ashok

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-13-2007

Reported in : IV(2007)BC252

..... petitioner. the account from which the said cheque was drawn is maintained only by the firm. therefore, the offence has been committed only by the partnership firm and not by an individual. further, there are no specific allegations and averments in the complaint that the petitioner in his capacity as a partner ..... be available to the petitioner in the instant case. the supreme court in a case reported in 2000 (1) scc crl 1 anil hada v. indian acrylic ltd., wherein it has been held as follows:10. three categories of persons can be discerned from the said provision who are brought within the ..... or otherwise, the other prosecuted persons cannot, on that score alone, escape from the penal liability created through the legal fiction envisaged in section 141 of the act.this judgment has been followed in the judgment reported in 2003 scc (cri) 1007 t. stanes and co. ltd v. a. jaffarullah.14. therefore, in ..... proceedings can be initiated against such drawer. in this context the phrase' as well as' used in sub-section (1) of section 141 of the act has some importance. the said phrase would embroil the persons mentioned in the first category within the tentacles of the offence on a par with the offending ..... the case, it cannot be said that there was no notice to the drawer of the cheque, as required under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act.11. i have perused the materials available on record and heard the submissions made by either counsel.12. though in the cause title it appears that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 18 2007 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G. Saroja

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-18-2007

Reported in : [2008]301ITR124(Mad)

..... premises of m/s. kalpaga builders and its partners on august 20, 1998. the assessee is the mother-in-law of the partners of the said partnership firm. during the raid, it was noticed that the assessee was the owner of the premises. the said firm had promoted a housing project which ..... period from april 1, 1988, to march 31, 1999, on november 19, 1999, before the initiation of proceedings under section 158bd of the income-tax act ('the act' in short), by the revenue. on august 13, 2001, the assessee was asked as to why she had filed the return in form no. 2b ..... the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract,and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract,then, notwithstanding that the contract, though ..... no written agreement between the assessee and the builder, which is the basic requirement for invoking the provision of section 53a of the transfer of property act. it is also further submitted that the assessee is yet to receive the amount and the assessee had shown the amount only as receivables and ..... the notice under section 158bd issued by the revenue. the assessing officer completed the block assessment for the said block period under section 158ba of the act read with section 158bd. the computation under the block assessment are as follows:rs.assessment year 1995-96 22,02,723assessment year 1996-97 27, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 02 2007 (HC)

Mrs. S. Bagavathy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary, Law ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-02-2007

Reported in : 2007(2)CTC207

..... 8 of the concurrent list (list-iii), viz., entry 1 of the concurrent list deals with criminal law, including all matters included in the indian penal code, but excluding offences against laws with respect to any of the matters specified in lists i and ii; entry 7 deals with contracts; ..... constitution of india, and the principles of natural justice? and(iii) whether the tamil nadu government has legislative competence to enact the impugned tamil nadu act?vi. analysis & consideration8.1. we have given our careful consideration to the submissions of all parties. we propose to legally and logically analyse and ..... the realisation of the dues payable to the depositors equitably.6.14. the learned advocate general stoutly opposes the contention of the petitioners that the impugned act is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory, and violative of principles of natural justice, and thereby, offending articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the ..... v. chief judicial magistrate, pondicherry and ors. 2006-4-lw 535, upheld the constitutional validity of the pondicherry act, of course, following the decision of p. sathasivam, j. reported in thiru muruga finance v ..... act').3.3. the pondicherry act incidentally was challenged before this court in c.r.p. (pd) no. 1352 of 2005 and w.p. no. 1897 of 2006, etc. and the learned single judge of this court (e. dharma rao, j.) by a common order dated 23.9.2006 reported in indian bank .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 01 2007 (HC)

iadayam Investments Rep. by Its Managaing Partner S.N. Sankaranarayana ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-01-2007

Reported in : II(2007)BC402

..... section 200 of cr.p.c for offence under section 138 of negotiable instrument act. 2. in the private complaint the complainant would alleged that the accused had borrowed rs. 3,00,000/- from the complainant, a partnership firm which was represented by the complainant, the managing partner s.n. sankaranarayanan ..... appellant relied on : 2002crilj1479 (a.v. murthy v. b.s. nagabasavanna) and contended that a private complaint under section 138 of negotiable instruments act cannot be dismissed on the ground that there was no consideration passed under the dishonoured cheque. a reading of the above cited judgment of the honourable ..... liability' means a leagally enforceable debt or other liability8(e) the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that under section 139 of negotiable instruments act when the accused had drawn ex.p.1-cheque for rs. 4,35,000/- the presumption should be that the consideration passed. but before ..... produced before him, the learned trial judge has come to the conclusion that the guilt against the accused under section 138 of negotiable instruments act was not proved beyond any reasonable doubt and consequently acquitted the accused under section 255(1) of cr.p.c. aggrieved by the findings ..... of lending of loan to the accused and that under section 25(3) of the indian contract act that is not an acknowledgment for the said debt before the time of limitation prescribed under the limitation act and the trial judge has come to the definite conclusion that it is a time .....

Tag this Judgment!


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