Court : Delhi
Reported in : 132ITR554(Delhi)
..... a further appeal to the tribunal. the tribunal accepted the assessed's claim to a very limited extent. the tribunal referred to section 37 of the indian partnership act. it found that for the period of two years ending on december 31, 1960, one-third share of sham nath by way of profits in the ..... reference made by the tribunal as well as by counsel for the assessed before us, section 37 of the indian partnership act has no application to the facts of this case.11. the result of the above position is that the partnership came to an end on january 14, 1959. thereafter, the retiring partner was entited to a settlement of ..... to sham nath included, inter alia, some compensation to him by way of interest as well as payment for the use of the assets (which belonged to the partnership in which he had also had an interest) for carrying on the business thereafter. in these circumstances, we think, the tribunal's conclusion that a part of the ..... and the retiring partner shall be deemed to have ceased as a partner although some matters might remain unsettled during that period. under clause (4) of the partnership deed the cash required for running the business was to be contributed by each partner according to his own share and if any partner advanced more than his share ..... ranganathan j.1. this is a reference under section 66(2) of indian i.t. act, 1922, which arose out of the assessment of shambhu nath, proprietor of delhi printing works, for the assessment year 1961-62 for which the previous year .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR2005Delhi323
..... commitments come to an end. he shall take all steps for the winding up of the business of the firm in terms of provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932. during the period the hotel remains under the control of the receiver, none of the parties shall try to interfere with his duties. they ..... mittal do not advance his plea for running the business to the exclusion of the other partners for the reason that neither the provisions of the indian partnership act nor the principles of equity, justice and good conscience permit the court to countenance unfair advantage to those who take law in their hands to gain ..... between the partners and distributing the assets/cash left after meeting the liabilities of dissolved firm. this is the purport of above referred provisions of indian partnership act. the hijacking of the business of a dissolved firm by one of the partners and its running by him to the exclusion of others by ..... hotel now and according to ashwini kapoor, he and his son have been ousted from the business forcibly. section 43 of the indian partnership act, 1932 clearly says that where a partnership is at will, the firm may be dissolved by any partner giving notice in writing to other partners of his intention to dissolve ..... of other partners and only winding up proceedings have to be undertaken in terms of sections 43, 45, 47 and 53 of the indian partnership act. it is argued that sections 41(c) and 41(e) do not permit the grant of any injunction in such situations to permit .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 149ITR202(Delhi)
..... in the constitution, and that separate assessments had to be made for the two periods. the court referred to s. 42(c) of the indian partnership act, 1932, and held that in view of this position under the partnership law, the ito was not entitled to proceed on the basis as if the same firm continued to be in existence throughout the accounting year ..... on law did arise for consideration of the high court. 4. a host of authorities were cited before us to canvass the proposition as to whether the provisions of the partnership act were applicable and whether it was a case of dissolution of the firm or a mere change in the constitution of the firm. the facts in the present case leave ..... with some strangers take over the assets and liabilities of the old firm and carry on the business. the supreme court further observed (p. 627) : 'under s. 40 of the partnership act, 1932, a firm can be dissolved with the consent of all the partners or in accordance with the contract between the partners; under s. 43 a ..... , and the partners were devi sahai, jagdish prasad and bal kishan dass. jagdish prasad was acting for and on behalf of radhey sham trust. this partnership was re-constituted by the deed of partnership dated june 26, 1963, when ram gopal taken in as the 4th partner. the partnership was at will and could be determined by mutual consent of all the parties. it .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2006(3)ARBLR152(Delhi); IV(2006)BC289; 131(2006)DLT341; 2006(90)DRJ293
..... registration is a mandatory pre-condition for the institution of a suit or other proceeding as contemplated under section 69(2) and (3) of the indian partnership act, 1932. if on the date of institution of the suit or proceeding, the firm is not registered, subsequent registration during the pendency of the ..... 69 were substantive provisions intended to discourage non-registration of firms. it also held that the provisions of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 were mandatory and make the registration of a firm a condition precedent to the institution of a suit of the nature mentioned therein. obviously, ..... ors. air 1978 del 92, wherein the said division bench had taken the view that the point of time contemplated in section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 was the time of institution of the suit. the division bench had taken the view that sub-sections (1) and (2) of section ..... the partners inter se or between the partners and firms for the purpose of enforcing a right arising from a contract or conferred by the indian partnership act unless the same is registered and the person suing is or has been shown in the register of firms as a partner in the firm ..... 3 are the partners of the said firm. according to the learned counsel for the respondent in view of the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the effect of non-registration of the petitioner no. 1 firm would be that it would be barred from instituting the present petition. the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2001IIAD(Delhi)256; 90(2001)DLT181
..... assessed in spite of notice. learned counsel for the revenue submitted that in view of section 47 of the indian partnership act, 1932(for short the 'partnership act') and section 189 of the act, mere discontinuance or dissolution would be of no consequence and section 41 of the act was clearly applicable to the facts of the case. 4. section 41(1) at the relevant point of ..... 1968-69. subsequently a part of the duty was refunded by the excise department out of which rs.18,255/- were received by the assessed being the successor of the partnership firm. assessed took the stand that assessment of the firm which had paid the additional fees was still pending consideration and the expenditure may not be allowed as a deduction ..... was carrying on business under the name and style of m/s baldev raj and sons. previously m/s baldev raj and sons was the name and style of a partnership firm of which m/s lal chand, kidar nath, madho ram, bishamber prashad and b.s.chawla were the partners. assessed was the successor to the business which was being ..... '. merely because he was carrying on business in succession to the earlier partnership firm's business, that does not per se make him the 'assessed' covered under section 41(1). section 2(31) of the act defines 'person' to include an 'individual' and a 'firm' separately. section 2(7) of the act defines an 'assessed'. by no stretch of imagination the firm in .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2003IVAD(Delhi)557; III(2003)BC231; 105(2003)DLT199; 2003(69)DRJ694
..... are the original certificate of registration as well as as form a by virtue of which name of the plaintiff firm was registered as partnership firm and thereforee section 69 of the indian partnership act providing that on behalf of the partnership firm, only a partner can institute the suit cannot come to the rescue of the defendant and, thus, issue is decided in favor ..... that suit is liable to be dismissed for want of notice under section 53b of the delhi development act. 4. vide order dated 14.3.1996, following issues were framed:-1. whether the plaintiff is a partnership firm duly registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act? if not, what the effect?2. whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff is entitled to all ..... of the plaintiff.issue no. 38. p.w.1 shri h.s. dharam sattu, executive engineer of defendant-dda has admitted service of notice under section 53b of the delhi development act ..... wages of labour, etc. as averred in para 30 of the plaint.3. whether the suit suffers for want of statutory notice under section 53-b of the delhi development act?4. whether the property valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction?5. whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is liable to pay rs. 500/- per day on .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2005(1)ARBLR166(Delhi)
..... framed by the learned additional district judge on 8.7.2002 in these applications:-'whether the petition is maintainable in view of bar created by section 69(1) of the indian partnership act.'7. the impugned order records that no arguments were advanced by the petitioners to justify the maintainability of their applications. the case of the respondents on the other hand was ..... b.a. khan, j.1. petitioners' applications under sections 11 and 9 of the arbitration & conciliation act, 1996 have been dismissed for being barred by section 69 of the indian partnership act by impugned order dated 2.9.2002 passed in suit no. 65/2002 giving rise to this petition.2. petitioners had filed these applications before learned additional district judge for ..... appointment of arbitrator under section 11 and for appointment of receiver under section 9 of the act as a temporary interim measure. their case ..... permitted least judicial intervention in matters involving settlement of disputes which fall within the domain of arbitrator and had also misappreciated and misapplied the provisions of section 69 of the partnership act. he had also wrong reliance on a judgment of a guwahati high court in mohd.monirul hasan (supra) in which a partner of an unregistered firm had filed a .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 94(2001)DLT374; 2001(60)DRJ779
..... section 200 cr.p.c. adduced by the petitioner. civil liability for payment of amount of said cheque is distinct from criminal liability and the provisions of indian partnership act, thus, have no relevance in the matter. taking note of the ratio in ram kishan rohtagi's case (supra) no fault can be found with ..... a.k. singla for petitioner was that respondent no. 2 was / is responsible for conduct of business carried in partnership in the name of m/s. vogue apparels along with other partners under the indian partnership act, 1932 and the plea taken by her, she being not vicariously liable for the criminal liability arising out of ..... of the said paras of complaint it is alleged that respondent no. 2 / accused no. 3 was in charge of and was responsible to the partnership firm for conduct of its business or that she had consented or connived to the commission of said office within the meaning of above sub-section (2 ..... 141. it is pertinent to note that in para no. 1 of the complaint (ann.a) it is alleged that m/s. vogue apparels is a partnership firm of which accused 2, 3, 4 and 5 are the partners. in para no. 6 it is stated that accused no. 2 on behalf of ..... certificate of postings. however, despite service of notices the amount of cheque was not paid. accused had thus committed offence punishable under section 138 of the act. after recording pre-summoning evidence vide order dated 24th april 1998 the accused were summoned to face trial for the said offence. feeling aggrieved, the accused .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1996Delhi319
..... and damages. in the plaint, the case set up by the plaintiff is that the plaintiff firm is a joint hindu family partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act. the appellant company was the defendant in the suit, attorney to the partnership firm by paying license fee. the plaintiff firm had taken a plot b-243, phase i, new industrial area, new delhi from ..... premises forthwith.40. we have considered rival contentions of the parties when the instant case is seen in the perspective of well known norms and parameters as laid down by indian and english decisions, the conclusion becomes irresistible that whatever may be the label, form or nomenclature of the agreement, the courts must look to the substance of the matter ..... payments, street v. mountford 1985 (2) all er 289 : 1985 ac 809, establishes that in such a situation a tenancy is created.' 27. on careful analysis of leading and celebrated indian and english decisions following conclusions are irresistible:'(a) the courts while deciding controversy in cases of lease and/or license must gather the real intention of parties executing the document ..... . the crucial question for consideration in this case is whether the instrument executed between the parties creates a license or a lease. similar question has come up for consideration before indian and english courts in number of cases.11. the division bench of calcutta high court in ram pratap kayan v. the national petroleum co. ltd., : air1950cal23 , hasobserved as under:' .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2007(4)ARBLR353(Delhi)
..... by the high court that the learned civil judge was wrong in rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint and in fact the respondent firm was registered under the indian partnership act, the question of throwing out the said suit on that ground would not arise. there cannot, however, be any doubt whatsoever that the firm must be registered at ..... . it is true that the arbitral proceedings would not be maintainable at the instance of an unregistered firm having regard to the mandatory provisions contained in section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932. it has been so held in jagdish chandra gupta v. kajaria traders (india) ltd. we may, however, notice that this court in firm ashok traders despite following ..... a dissolved firm, or any right or power to release property of a dissolved firm, was the exception carved out under sub-section (3) of section 69 of the indian partnership act. in saigal it was this exercise which was to be undertaken, and instead of filing a civil suit the parties have contractually agreed to enter into arbitration. thereforee, a ..... air2000sc2676 was applied erroneously. the following table is self explanatory so far as the claims proffered by the respondent unregistered partnership, which if allowed cannot but tantamount to removing the statutory embargo articulated in section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (for short 'partnership act), namely, that an unregistered firm is not competent to enforce a right emanating from a contract. if a suit .....Tag this Judgment!