Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: orissa Page 1 of about 143 results (0.035 seconds)

Jan 07 2002 (HC)

Rajanikanta Padhi Vs. B. Kameswar Subudhi (Dead) After Him His L.Rs. a ...

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 2002(I)OLR646

..... same, a ready reference to the relevant provision i. e., sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (in short 'the act 1932') is beneficial and that reads as hereunder:'(2) no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any ..... in that respect the relevant plea which he raised in the court below is as follows :'the suit is also hit under the provisions of the indian partnership act, the right to enforce have not arisen from a contract on behalf of the firm which is unregistered.'to understand the plea and to decide the ..... not maintainable by the plaintiff without including the co-owner, i.e. his brother and the suit is hit by section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932.8. learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent repelled the aforesaid contention and defended correctness of the impugned judgment.9. before discussing the aforesaid points raised ..... non-compliance of section 18-b(2) and rule 11 (iii) ?(3) is the suit not hit under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act ?(4) is the suit maintainable in law ?(5) is the suit barred by limitation ?(6) to what reliefs ?5. in the court ..... defendant-appellant contends that in the written statement, a plea of non-compliance of the provisions of the money lenders act and the suit being bad on account of section 69 of the partnership act had been raised and if these defences were ultimately established, notwithstanding the admissions of the power of attorney holder, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 22 1991 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T. Omer and Company

Court : Orissa

Reported in : (1992)102CTR(Ori)36; [1992]196ITR736(Orissa)

..... any part in the specified item of the property did not arise. the contention of learned standing counsel appears to be legally sound.5. a partnership-firm under the indian partnership act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as 'the partnership act'), is not a distinct legal entity apart from the partners constituting it and equally in law the firm as such has no separate rights of its ..... own in the partnership assets and when one talks of the firm's property or the firm's assets, all that is meant is property or assets ..... partner may assign his share to another. but what is permissible in that regard is laid down in section 29(1) of the partnership act, that is to say, the right to receive the share of profits of the assignor and accept the account of profits agreed to by the partners. a similar view expressed ..... have a joint or common interest, (see malabar fisheries co. v. cit : [1979]120itr49(sc) .)6. the provisions of sections 14, 15, 29, 32, 37, 38 and 48 of the partnership act, 1932, make it clear that whatever may be the character of the property which is brought in by the partners when the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 1959 (HC)

Popsingh Mahadeo Prasad Vs. Dipchand Ray and anr.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1960Ori123; 26(1960)CLT471

..... any reliance on these accounts to come to any definite finding. however, the suit not being maintainable under sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act, and even if it is maintainable, the suit having been barred by limitation these questions really do not arise.11. in the result, the appeal must ..... defendant no. 1 and challanged the finding of the trial judge in respect of both the bar under sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act as well as of limitation. he argued that the suit though filed in the name of popsing mahadeo prasad it was an individual suit by mahadeo prasad ..... . dasgupta and the suit being by an unregistered firm must be held to be barred under sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act.8. coming to the question of limitation, the suit admittedly was filed on 27-9-50. according to the defendant either article 61 or article 64 ..... no. 20 of 1951: (air 1960 orissa 119). in that case no specific plea under sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act was taken in the written statement, but there was necessary evidence for the application of that section to be found on the record. thus the ..... , came to the conclusion that the suit is clearly barred under sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act. he also held that whether article 61 or article 64 of the limitation act was applicable, the suit is barred by limitation. he further held that the plaintiff has not been successful to establish .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 02 1985 (HC)

Khatuna and anr. Vs. Ramsewak Kashinath, a Partnership Firm and anr.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1986Ori1

..... section 59 and so that suit could not be instituted by the firm against the petitioners as required in section 69(2) of the indian partnership act (referred to as the 'act'). further, necessary parties to the suit were not impleaded. the defects in the suit at the time of its institution as referred to above ..... been registered after the institution of the suit. so, the suit is bound to fail for non-registration of the firm under section 69 of the indian partnership act it does not affect the merits of the suit and does not go to the root of the plaintiffs claim. so, it is a formal defect ..... in the petition were as follows :-- a) opposite party no. 1 is a partnership firm which was registered under section 59 of the indian partnership act on 21-8-1979 after the suit was instituted on 22-6-1979. because the partnership firm was not registered on the date of institution of the suit it was likely ..... cannot bring a suit to enforce a right arising out of a contract falling within the ambit of section 69 of the partnership act.' 10. a similar interpretation of section 69(2) of the act was handed down by a division bench of delhi high court in a case reported in air 1978 delhi 255 (shankar ..... the root of the plaintiff's case. 6. on the petition of the petitioner no. 2, the opposite parties disclosed the names of the partners constituting the partnership firm 'opposite party no. 1'. they were, abdul gafur, mahavir prasad agarwalla and smt. shiv kumari devi. patently on 22-6-1979 when the suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 1971 (HC)

Maliram Chowdhury Vs. Jagannath Modi

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1972Ori17

..... the appellant contends that the learned subordinate judge is clearly in error in holding that the suit is hit under section 69 of the indian partnership act. according to him, since that is the only count on which the suit had been dismissed, if it is held that the bar under ..... of registration and for defect of parties?as alreadv indicated, he found that maliram gourishankar was a partnership firm and in view of the admitted position that there is no registration under the indian partnership act. the suit was bad.there is no documentary evidence to show that the plaintiff maliram and one ..... gourishankar constituted a partnership firm under the name and style of 'maliram-gourishankar'. nor is there any agreement of partnership produced. the plaintiff as p. w. ..... in the circumstances, both the aspects require examination. i shall first proceed to examine whether the suit is hit under section 69 of the partnership act.the plaintiff alleged in paragraph 1 of the plaint that he is the proprietor of the firm maliram-gourishankar having its head-office at calcutta ..... was a firm consisting of maliram. (p. w. 2) and gourishankar (p. w. 1). since the firm was not registered under the partnership act the suit was hit under section 69 thereof. he next contended that while the transactions did take place on the dates indicated and to the extents .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 21 2004 (HC)

D.R. Associates Vs. General Manager, East Coast Railways and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : I(2005)BC10; 98(2004)CLT109; 2005(1)CTLJ146(Ori); 2004(I)OLR689

..... as required under the tender notice. in this regard it is worthwhile to have a look at the provisions of the indian partnership act, particularly, section 14, which speaks as follows :'section 14. the property of the firm : subject to contract between the partners, the property of the firm includes all ..... enumeratesas follows :'section 8. particular partnership : a person maybecome a partner with another person in particular adventuresor undertakings.'relying upon the aforesaid provisions of the partnership act, mr. palit, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the very purpose of formation of ..... over of the partnership. according to thelearned counsel for the opp. parties, the deed of reconstitutingthe partnership was executed on 10.4.2003, just little more thanone month before the tender notice was published, for the purposeof participating in the tender.5. learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard takes usthrough section 8 of the indian partnership act, 1932, which ..... be the separate property of one of the partners. where a partner brings certain property into the common stock as part of his capital, it becomes the partnership property. likewise, the partnership act has specifically included the goodwill among the partners of the firm subject to any contract between the partners, in all accounts for determining the shares. so, whether .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 22 1961 (HC)

Tulsiram Sanganeria and anr. Vs. Smt. Anni Bai and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1963Ori11

..... family and can proceed against the entire joint family assets in the hands of the junior members thereof.reference was made to section 5 of the indian partnership act, 1932. section 5 states that the relationship of partnership arises from contract and not from status, and in particular, the members of a hindu undivided family carrying on a family business as such, are not ..... such; (iii) assuming both manilal and surajmal were the kartas of their families and had entered into the partnership, the partnership stood dissolved under section 42 of the indian partnership act, 1932, immediately after the death of surajmal in 1946. accordingly, pannalal by executing the suit-pronotes cannot bind the other partners; (iv) the course of dealings and the books of ..... the members of the joint family, when the manager is conducting the business in a proper way.14. mr. roy argued that the partnership stood dissolved immediately after the death of surajmal. he referred to clause (c) of section 42 of the indian partnership act;'subject to contract between the partners, a firm is dissolved by the death of a partner.'true, normally the ..... partnership would stand dissolved on the death of a partner unless it is otherwise contracted for, but if it is found from the subsequent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 1963 (HC)

Sheoduttrai Bholanath Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and OrissA ...

Court : Orissa

Reported in : [1964]52ITR121(Orissa)

..... there was no dissolution of the old firm, but a mere reconstitution of the same.the question which arises for consideration now is, where an old firm registered under the indian partnership act was reconstituted and notice of such reconstitution was given to the registrar of firms under section 63(1) on october 14, 1957, that firm can be held to be 'a ..... firm registered under the indian partnership act, 1932' on the date of the application under section 26a, namely, october 18, 1957, even though the actual order of the registrar under section 63(1) of the ..... from the date of the constitution of the firm where the firm is not registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. clause (b) however says that if the firm is not registered under the indian partnership act, 1932, it may apply for registration under section 26a of the indian income-tax act, 1922, before the end of the previous year of the firm. thus the two clauses of ..... the tribunal disagreed with the findings of the two lower authorities. but it held that even an old registered firm which is reconstituted must apply for fresh registration under the indian partnership act and that as the order of the registrar was passed only on october 21, 1959, the reconstituted firm was not a firm registered under the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 18 1979 (HC)

indrajit Singh and ors. Vs. Mirza JaliluddIn Baig and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1979Ori196; 48(1979)CLT389

..... high court on the point. in m. a. no, 19 of 1976, it was contended before this court that the suit being one under section 44 of the indian partnership act for dissolution of the partnership firm, the matter could not be referred to arbitration. this point was answered in the following manner :'the second reason given by the learned subordinate judge is that ..... the plaintiff respondent no. 1 having prayed for dissolution of the partnership firm under section 44 of the indian partnership act, the case has to be decided in the court itself and not through arbitration. for this position, reliance is placed on a decision reported in (1972) 1 ..... of the act were registered as misc. case no. 21 of 1976 and on contest was rejected by the then ..... for staying further proceedings in the suit on the ground that the partnership deed contained an arbitration clause to the following effect:'that in the event of any dispute between the parties aforesaid touching upon the business of the partnership firm, the same shall be referred to arbitration under the indian arbitration act, 1940.' these petitions of defendants 1 to 4 under section 34 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 21 1958 (HC)

Bajranglal Chowkhani and anr. Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1958Ori280; [1959]37ITR522(Orissa)

..... assessment which is payable by them. thus, the provisions of section 44 are clearly attracted. 5. section 2(6b) of the income-tax act lays down that 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' have the same meanings respectively as in the indian partnership-act, 1932 (act ix of 1932), provided that the expression 'partner' includes any person who being a minor has been admitted to the benefits of ..... partnership under the indian partnership act. 'partnership' has been defined in section 4. according to that section 'partnership' is the relation between the persons who nave agreed to share the ..... profits of business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. persons who have entered into partnership with one another are called individually 'partners' and collectively .....

Tag this Judgment!


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