Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: madhya pradesh Year: 1991 Page 1 of about 4 results (0.054 seconds)

Oct 04 1991 (HC)

General Mines and Quarries Ltd. Vs. Kartar Singh Prem Singh and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-04-1991

Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ563

..... of a company and section 34 thereof speaks of effect of such registration. there is no provision in the companies act similar to that of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 barring a suit by the secretary or by any director or any other principal officer of the corporation who ..... is able to depose to the facts of the case. in akola gin combination v. northcote ginning factory (supra), the court of judicial commissioner, nagpur held that an association of persons not registered under the companies act ..... other members of an association formed in contravention of section 11(2) of the companies act, 1956 was not tenable. it was also held that the analogy of section 69(3)(a) of the partnership act, 1932 does not apply to the case of an association of persons which is required ..... to be registered under the companies act. to sum up, a suit by an unregistered company was held to be not ..... termination of his employment, the defendant surrendered possession of the land to his master and, thereafter, dispossessed it. there was even no overt act, showing disclaimer of the plaintiffs title over the suit land. the learned counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased defendant argued that as the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 21 1991 (HC)

Mohanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-21-1991

Reported in : 1993(0)MPLJ371

..... settled between the outgoing partner and the remaining partners and the dues to the outgoing partner have not been ascertained and paid. section 14 of the partnership act lays down that the 'property of the firm' shall include the goodwill of the business. this, however, is subject to any contract between the ..... as much a property as any other property and has a value. this property can even be bought and sold (section 53 of the partnership act). not only this, such goodwill can be transferred by gift and in that event is chargeable to gift-tax. in cgt v. chhotalal ..... being so, even if parmanandbhai did not inherit anything from the erstwhile partner smt. jadavbai, he had interest in all the assets of the partnership including goodwill.7. the income-tax appellate tribunal was not justified in observing that since parmanandbhai did not contribute any thing towards the earning of ..... purchase of parmanandbhai's share in that goodwill. instead, the arrangement for the timebeing was only to pay a certain amount periodically to enable the partnership to make use of that goodwill, the payment was for an indefinite periodwithout any limitation of time and it had no relation to the capital ..... supreme court referred to its earlier decision in khushal khemgar shah v. khorshed banu dadiba boatwalla : [1970]3scr689 wherein goodwill was held as an asset of a partnership firm. referring to the two decisions in cgt v. nani gopal mondal : [1984]150itr469(cal) and m.k. kuppuraj v. cgt : [1985]153itr481( .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 1991 (HC)

Radhakishan Narayandas (Partnership Firm) Vs. Manmohan Garg

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-19-1991

Reported in : 1993(0)MPLJ909

..... a limited nature. jurisdiction in such cases, according to the learned author, was exercised by british government as a 'foreign jurisdiction' under foreign jurisdiction act, 1890, enacted by the british parliament. for transfer of power, indian independence act, 1947 was enacted and therein provision was made as per section 2(1) in regard to 'territories under the sovereignty of his majesty which immediately ..... said proprietors, as their distinctive marks or brands and they are their 'proper marks under the provisions of the indian merchandise marks act (act iv of 1989) and protected for their sole and exclusive use under the provisions of sections 478 and 489, indian penal code for the business carried on or to be carried on by them in any place throughout india.....' the ..... in respect of law in force at the relevant time in the erstwhile native state of bhopal in regard to acquisition of property in trade mark of its registration. the indian merchandise marks act, 1889 (for short, i.m.m. act) as per section 1(2), extended only to british india. no evidence as contemplated under section 4 of foreign jurisdiction ..... . the executant of the declaration ex.d/5 not being a british subject at the relevant time, and the act not being extended for the exercise of power and jurisdiction contemplated under section 3, i.m.m. act read with section 478, indian penal code to erstwhile bhopal state, there is no basis at all for holding that the defendant or for that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 10 1991 (HC)

Rewachand S/O Udharam Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-10-1991

Reported in : 1991(0)MPLJ828

..... has vehemently opposed the contentions of the counsel for the applicant. he has supported the order passed by the sub-divisional magistrate. according to him, the partnership deed dated 8-11-1985 was executed for a fixed period of five years between mohandas son of meghraj, the present applicant and the non-applicant no ..... corporation, katni. on 8-11-1985, one mohandas son of shri meghraj, rewachand son of sadrangmal and rewachand lohani (the applicant) executed a deed of partnership, which was for a fixed period of five years.3. thereafter, it is alleged by the applicant that on 22-11-1985, the non-applicant no. ..... he has also not stated in the plaint (annexure r-5) that the document i.e. the partnership deed (agreement) between mohandas, himself and the non-applicant no. 2 on 8-11-1985 was neither executed nor acted upon. in para 4 of the above annexure r-5, he only states that from 22-11 ..... , 1986 (i) mpwn 118.6. learned counsel for the applicant has admitted execution of the partnership deed dated 8-11-1985 between mohandas, applicant and the non-applicant no. 2 but submits that it was never acted upon. he also does not dispute the execution of he documents of the final settlement and agreement ..... -1985, the plaintiff and mohandas started their wholesale business in partnership. the applicant has nowhere stated or argued that now there is no .....

Tag this Judgment!

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