Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: karnataka Page 1 of about 549 results (0.018 seconds)

Jan 22 2008 (HC)

Smt. Usha Gopirathnam W/O Shri Gopirathnam, Vs. Shri P.S. Ranganathan, ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2008(3)AIRKarR291; AIR2008NOC2137; 2008AIHC2457(Kar); 2008(5)KLJ220

..... cannot be construed as notice to all the partners and therefore it is not a notice at all having regard to the provisions of section 32 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (for short the 'partnership act). in order to reinforce his submission that gopirathnam did not retire from the firm despite the existence of ex. d-2, the learned senior counsel took; ..... same chapter under the heading 'collection of other definitions' and under that, the definition given in the indian partnership act, 1932 (based on the partnership act 1890) is also included and the definitions as given by frederick pollock and watson are as under:pollock: partnership is the relation which subsists between parsons who have agreed to sham the profits of a business carried on ..... their status does not arise. the appellants have failed to plead, the existence of a contract and therefore having regard to the nature of partnership and the provisions of the partnership act, particularly section 69 of the partnership act, the suit itself is not maintainable, in order to drive home the point that existence of a contract is essential, learned senior counsel referred ..... having continued as a partner during the 24 years period,, between the date of letter of retirement written by the gopirathnam and his death. as the essential requirements of partnership act had not been fulfilled the trial court has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. no interference is therefore necessary in this appeal and he prayed for the dismissal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 1996 (HC)

M/S. Chandrika Enterprise Vs. G. Vittalla Rao

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1996Kant214; ILR1996KAR1998; 1996(1)KarLJ461

..... for these reasons, this petition may be dismissed. this respondent has also filed an additional objections contending that the petition is bad for non-compliance of section 69 of the indian partnership act. 4. the case of the respondent in h.r.c. 193/94 has been summarised in para 6 of the impugned order. it reads as follows:--'it is true that ..... under the law for a person to formulate partnerships for the purpose of his business. the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that so far as the petitioner-firm chandrika enterprises is concerned, except the petition schedule property, ..... in the impugned order. the learned trial judge has observed therein that the subsequent conductof the partners of the petitioner-firm in acquiring another property sanman delux by constituting another partnership firm raises doubts upon the case of the petitioner. as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner this reasoning is not correct, inasmuch as there is no prohibition ..... is hereby passed in these two revision pelitions.2. the facts which have led to these revision petitions may briefly be stated as follows: --the petitioner which is a partnership firm represented by its managing directors whichis common in all the five petitions, filed the said eviction petitions praying for eviction of the respondents-tenants in different portions of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 26 2000 (HC)

Prudential Engineers and ors. Vs. Kuskoor Bharath Ram

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2003KAR4617

..... , being the partners of the first petitioner - accused, are liable to face the prosecution and in that connection, placed reliance on section 25 of the indian partnership act, 1932, and, in any event, it is not a case, where the proceedings can be quashed under section 482 of cr. p.c. when ..... with it, as he was not at fault nor wrong in impleading all the partners as accused, when kept in mind section 25 of the partnership act. that being so, taking cognizance and issuing process against all the partners of the firm also by the trial court was not at all bad ..... said admitted facts constitute an offence punishable under section 138 of negotiable instruments act against all the partners of the firm or not5. section 25 of partnership act, on which the complainant relies, is as under:'25. liability of a partner for acts of the firm. - every partner is liable, jointly with all the ..... other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner.'6. section 141 of the negotiable instruments act, which ..... thus:'3........................the 2nd petitioner the managing partner of the firm, over-all looking after the affairs and management of the firm. as per the partnership deed 4th & 5th partners are the sleeping partners not at all involved in the affairs and management of the firm.'so also in paragraph no. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 24 2008 (HC)

Yessay Foodoils (Represented by Its Partners: Mohammed Iqbal S/O Late ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2008(5)KCCR3232; AIR2009Kant103; ILR2009KAR724; 2009(9)KarLJ156; 2009(3)AIRKarR352;

..... plaintiffs in the trial court.2. the suit was instituted by the plaintiffs, who are the partners of an unregistered partnership firm, seeking the relief of possession and ..... v. jagannathan, j.1. whether the suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm for possession and mesne profits can be said to be not maintainable in view of the bar under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 is the question that calls for an answer in this second appeal filed by the ..... will have to be mainly on the maintainability of the suit in view of the bar contained under section 69(2) of the partnership act.12. section 69(2) of the partnership act, 1932 reads as under:(2) no suits to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any court by ..... air2000sc2676 , the learned counsel for the appellants argued that it is clear from the aforesaid decisions of the apex court that section 69(2) of the partnership act cannot be a bar for the enforcement of a statutory right or a common law right by an unregistered firm and the right to evict a tenant upon ..... a suit wherein the plaintiff firm is not enforcing contractual right vis-a-vis the defendant, even in terms of section 69(2) of the partnership act, 1932.7. learned counsel shri kukkaje ramakrishna bhat for the appellants, contended that the lower appellate court was totally in error in not noticing the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 2009 (HC)

Shantappa Vs. Irappa Shankarappa and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2009(6)KarLJ257; 2009(6)KLJ257

..... proceeding on the premises that the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 constituted a partnership firm to run a partnership business. drawing the attention of the court to section 69(1) of the indian partnership act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' for short), he submits that unless the firm was a registered one and ..... recorded a finding that plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 1 to 3 agreed to undertake a venture for development and sale of land in partnership by contributing equally and pursuant to the same, a registered agreement of sale was executed by the owners of the land in favour of the ..... loss.8. the trial court framed necessary issues including as to whether the plaintiffs proved that they were entitled to seek accounts of the dissolved partnership firm from the defendants and as to whether the plaintiffs proved that they were entitled to the decree for an amount found due to them ..... 1st defendant, they approached the 1st defendant agreeing to contribute towards the sale consideration and for future expenses so that the work could be done in partnership, to which the 1st defendant agreed. however, as plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 2 and 3 had no ready money, it was the ..... herein.2. appellant was the 1st defendant and 5th respondent was the 2nd defendant. the suit was filed for taking the accounts of the dissolved partnership firm treating the sales of the properties effected by the 1st defendant in favour of the purchasers as not binding on the plaintiffs and for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 28 1999 (HC)

Shivalingeshwar Oil Mill, Haveri Vs. Chanaveerappa Basalingappa Kaddi

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1999KAR4125; 1999(6)KarLJ320

..... that in these circumstances, to import the definition of 'person' occurring in section 3(42) of the general clauses act into section 4 of the indian partnership act will be totally repugnant to the subject of partnership law. 11. following the decision of the supreme court in dulichand laxminarayan's case, supra, and in other cases ..... .10. in dulichand laxminarayan v commissioner of income-tax, nagpur, the supreme court has ruled that the word 'person' in section 4 of the partnership act means only the legal person, natural or artificial, and that a firm is not a person since it is not an entity or person in law ..... . parthasarathy naidu's, case, supra, laid down several emerging legal propositions. the relevant of them for our purpose are.-'(1) the concept of partnership law is that a firm is not an entity or a person in law but only a compendious mode of designating persons who have agreed to ..... relied on for the judgment-debtor is distinguishable and inapplicable to the facts of the case in hand. in that case, on dissolution of a partnership firm, one of its partner had obtained a money decree against another partner on the basis of the accounts settled between them. during execution of the ..... to their exploitation by the affluent classes and not to any juristic or non-statutory person like a partnership firm or a joint hindu family. therefore, the object and context of the act of 1980 irresistibly leads to the intention of the legislature that any juristic or non-juristic person as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 27 2009 (HC)

Sri C.J. Singh Son of Late Atam Singh Kochar Vs. State of Karnataka Re ...

Court : Karnataka

..... .82 lakhs (rupees six crores and eighty two lakhs). the said niketan shelters pvt. ltd., along with m/s.paranjape schemes construction ltd., formed partnership on 16/9/2005 duly registered under the indian partnership act whereby the said converted property was transferred in favour of the said constructions limited. therefore, it became the absolute owner of the said property.30. m ..... /s.paranjape schemes construction ltd., bangalore, the petitioner entered into memorandum of understanding with m/s.athashri foundation, a company incorporated under section 25 of the companies act, 1956 being ..... 19. the appellate authority has further made an observation in the impugned order stating that initially, the constriction company-respondent is a 'proprietorship concern' and later it became 'partnership firm' which observation is factually incorrect. the actual fact is that the construction company had claimed in the application dated 10.07.2006 that it is a ..... partnership firm.20. further, it is stated that on totally irrelevant facts, reasons and observations made by the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal affirming the grant of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 2001 (HC)

Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. D.M. Srinivas

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : (2001)166CTR(Kar)59; ILR2001KAR504; [2001]248ITR406(KAR); [2001]248ITR406(Karn)

..... used by the assessee for his business but by the firm in which he is also a partner. in our opinion, in view of the meaning of the expression 'partnership' in the indian partnership act, and in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the apex court in ramniklal's case : [1969]74itr57(sc) , it can safely be said that the business carried on by ..... in a firm or as a member of an association of persons and the assets of such firm or association includes any urban assets, then, notwithstanding the provisions of the indian partnership act, the interest of the assessee in such firm or association to the extent specified in the explanation, shall be deemed to be an urban asset for the purpose of levy ..... partner in a firm or as a member of an association of personsand the assets of such firm or association include any urban assets, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the indian partnership act, 1932 (9 of 1932), or in any other law for the time being in force, the interest of the assessee in such firm or association, to the extent specified in ..... . r. susheela : [1989]176itr232(kar) and this court in cit v. prahash beedies (p.) ltd. : [1986]161itr241(kar) , in a similar situation adopted the said course. section 4 of the indian partnership act reads as under :''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!

Dec 19 2002 (HC)

B. Raghurama Prabhu Estate, Executrix Smt. M. Kaveri Bai and ors. Vs. ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : (2003)180CTR(Kar)87; [2003]264ITR124(KAR); [2003]264ITR124(Karn)

..... 25. in the case of saligram v. rajnath air 1974 sc 1094, keeping in view section 47 of the indian partnership act the supreme court has held that : 'according to section 47 of the indian partnership act, 1932, after dissolution of the firm, authority of each partner to bind the firm, and other mutual rights ..... of its members question no. 1 20. before proceeding to answer this question, one has to bear in mind that 'partnership' as defined in section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932, is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any ..... of them acting for all. this relationship may have many other attributes as agreed between the parties and are recognised under the partnership act. so far ..... only on 20th nov., 1994. 24. for completion of the process of winding up, the legislature has engrafted section 47 in the partnership act for continuance of the partnership by creating a legal fiction. this section reads as under: 'section 47. continuing authority of partners for purposes of winding up-- ..... often said, that a firm is merely a compendious description of the individuals who carry on the partnership business. but under the it act, a firm is a distinct assessable entity. section 3 of the indian it act, 1922 treats it as such, and the entire process of computation of the income of a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 1963 (HC)

Gurunath V. Dhakappa Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1963KAR940; [1964]53ITR757a(KAR); [1964]53ITR757a(Karn)

..... act, which provides that subject to contract between the partners, a partner is not entitled to receive remuneration for taking part in the conduct of the ..... 16 sets out the duties of the assistant managers. on an examination of the partnership deed, it is clear that the partners had agreed to remunerate the manager for the duties performed by him. therefore the present case is not one that falls within the scope of section 9 of the indian partnership act, 1932. but it falls under section 13(a) of that ..... , if under the law of partnership, a partnership firm cannot remunerate a partner, there was no need for section 10(4)(b) or section 16(1)(b) of the income-tax ..... from the profits of the partnership firm. the only question that we have to decide is whether the remuneration received by shri gurunath v. dhakappa should be considered as his individual income or that of his family. hence, we are not concerned with section 10(4)(b) or section 16(1)(b) of the indian income-tax act 1922, in this case. but .....

Tag this Judgment!


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