Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: supreme court of india Year: 1970 Page 1 of about 24 results (0.097 seconds)

Feb 13 1970 (SC)

SaifuddIn Hussinbhay Siamwala Vs. the Burma Cycle Trading Co.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-13-1970

Reported in : (1971)3SCC881

..... can be allowed to be adduced on matters which are neither pleaded nor put into issue. it is quite clear that section 69(3) of the indian partnership act had no applicability in such circumstances and the high court was in error in going into this matter at all.7. the allegations in the eviction petition ..... is whether the present suit for eviction under the provisions of the madras buildings (lease and rent control) act, 1960, hereinafter called the act, was barred by virtue of the provisions of section 69(3) of the indian partnership act owing to the non-registration of the firm of which the four appellants are the partners.2. the ..... it was held that the high court could not have decided the case on the basis of the bar contained in section 69(3) of the partnership act there can be no doubt and it has not been disputed that the order of the rent controller had been correctly made.8. the appeal is ..... be said that all the appellants were entitled to the possession of the building within the meaning of section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the act.5. section 69 of the partnership act, to the extent, it is relevant is in the following terms:69. (1) no suit to enforce a right arising from a ..... the register of firms as partners their petition for eviction was not maintainable under the act since it was a proceeding to enforce a right arising out of a contract within the meaning of section 69(3) of the partnership act. he even expressed the view that although the landlords of the premises in question .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 1970 (SC)

Agarwal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-07-1970

Reported in : (1970)2SCC48

..... twenty. if they exceed twenty he cannot register the partnership, as such a partnership contravenes section 4(2) of the indian companies act, 1913.8. section 2(6-b) of the act provides that the expression firm partner and partnership in the act have the same meaning respectively as in the indian partnership act, 1932.section 4 of the partnership act, 1932, prescribes: partnership 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.persons who have entered into partnership with one another are called individually partners ..... a coparcener, even when he is the karta, entering into partnership with others in carrying on a business is well settled. the partnership that is created is a contractual partnership and is governed by the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932. the partnership is not between the family and the other partners; it is a partnership between the coparcener individually and his other partners. the coparcener is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 1970 (SC)

L. Debi Prasad (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Tribeni Devi and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-18-1970

Reported in : AIR1970SC1286; (1970)1SCC677; [1971]1SCR101

..... could have only happened if shyam behari lal had been adopted by gopal das. exhs. a-352 and 356 are two applications made for registration of . a firm under the indian partnership act, 1932. the first application was made on march 26, 1936. it was returned with some objection and the second application was made on may 4, 1936. both these applications bear ..... son is on shyam behari lal. but as observed by the judicial committed1 of the privy council in rajendrao nath holder v. jogendro nath benerjee and ors. 14 moore's indian appeals p. 67 that although the person who pleads that he had been adopted is bound to prove his title as adopted son, as a fact yet from the long ..... the matters before it, the court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. hence if after taking an overall view of the evidence adduced in the case, we are satisfied that the adoption pleaded is true, we .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 1970 (SC)

Agarwal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Uttar Pradesh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-07-1970

Reported in : AIR1970SC1343; [1970]77ITR10(SC); [1971]1SCR237

..... twenty. if they exceed twenty he cannot register the partnership, as such a partnership contravenes section 4(2) of the indian companies act, 1913.8. section 2(6b) of the act provides that the expression 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' in the act have the same meaning respectively as in the indian partnership act, 1932.9. section 4 of the partnership act, 1932 prescribes :--'partnership' 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.persons who have entered into partnership with one another are called individually ..... a coparcener, even when he is the karta, entering into partnership with others in carrying on a business is well settled. the partnership that is created is a contractual partnership and is governed by the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932. the partnership is not between the family and the other partners; it is a partnership between the coparcener individually and his other partners. the coparcener is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 1970 (SC)

Joharmal Murlidhar and Co. Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Assam ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-04-1970

Reported in : AIR1970SC1980; [1971]79ITR6(SC); (1970)3SCC331

k.s. hegde, j.1. these appeals by certificate raise common question of law. 2. the appellant is a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. it consists of two partners. the partnership owns two estates namely (1) chowkhani tea seed estate and (2) mahadeobari tea estate. the dispute in this case is as to the extent of the liability of the appellant ..... to pay the agricultural income-tax under the assam agricultural income-tax act, for the assessment years 1954-55, 1955-56 ..... which the agricultural income-tax payable by the assessee had to be determined. hence the assessing officer assessed the appellant under section 20(4) of the assam agricultural income-tax act. in other words he assessed the assessee on the basis of best judgment. the assessee challenged the assessments in question by means of petitions under article 226 of the constitution ..... court refused to accept the contention of the assessee that the impugned assessments were made arbitrarily on the ground that the assessee had failed to take proper steps under the act by appealing against the impugned order. that is undoubtedly a good ground for refusing to give the relief to the assessee but all the same, taking into consideration, the amounts .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 26 1970 (SC)

Luka Mathai Vs. Neelakanta Iyer Subramonia Iyer

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-26-1970

Reported in : (1971)3SCC974; [1971]1SCR629

s.m. sikri, j.1. this appeal by certificate granted by the high court of kerala is directed against its judgment and decree reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissing the suit of the original plaintiff, appellant before us. the relevant facts for determining the points raised before us by mr. chagla. learned counsel for the appellant, are as follows.2. on december 5, 1931, the plaintiff executed a hypothecation bond in favour of the travancore government in respect of a loan of rs. 6,000/-. on december 12.1931. another bond was executed in respect of a further loan of rs. 4.400/-. on may 28, 1932, the plaintiff executed another hypothecation bond in favour of the father of neelakama iyer subramonia iyer respondent before us. in the government gazettes dated february 21. 1939, and april 25, 1939, under paragraph 6 reference is made to the arrears of rs. 4,193 chs. 19 ca. 9 plus interest under the special loan to be paid by luka mathai of pallithanathu, kottayam taluk, and the sale of 97 acres of nilam comprised in survey 545/32-11/1 and 14 cents of purayidam comprised in survey 532/3.3. a notice was issued to the plaintiff in march or april 1939 (27-8-1114 m.e.) that as he had to repay rs. 4,193 chs. 19 ca. 9 under the special loan plus the execution costs and the interest thereon 'it-is hereby made known that 107 acres 84 cents of properties belonging to you and comprised in survey numbers 545/ 32-11/1, 481/3, 481/4a, 481-/4c etc. of pulinkunnu .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 15 1970 (SC)

Narayanlal Bansilal Pittie. Vs. Tarabai Motilal (Dead) by Lrs.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-15-1970

Reported in : (1970)3SCC293; 1971(III)LC70(SC)

..... her plaint.20. counsel for the plaintiffs said that tarabai did not make a counterclaim in the bombay suit for her dues in respect of the partnership because she was advised that under the indian limitation act, 1908, applicable to the counter-claim filed in bombay the claim for rs. 93,827-4-6 if made by tarabai was barred. that contention may ..... were accustomed to do business transactions and invested them with some formality. they were living at different places, and during the course of samvat year 1982 and 1983 when the partnership was admittedly subsisting there was correspondence in relation to its dealings. after november 13, 1927 there is complete absence of correspondence. not even a letter was addressed to pittie by ..... trial court. it is necessary to closely scrutinise the circumstances and the oral evidence in the light of the documentary evidence.11. it is common ground that there was a partnership between tarabai, pittie and chogmal which lasted for two years. correspondence in this connection may be briefly noticed.12. by letter dated october 21, 1925, pittie proposed certain conditions on ..... was foreign territory the claim was within limitation by virtue of section 13 of the hyderabad limitation act.2. pittie by his written statement denied that there was a partnership agreement for five years as alleged by tarabai. he contended that he had entered into a partnership agreement with tarabai and chogmal to carry on business in cotton, cotton-seed and cotton bales .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 20 1970 (SC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur and Bhandara Vs. Hu ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-20-1970

Reported in : AIR1971SC383; [1970]78ITR18(SC); [1971]1SCR646

..... of contract as any other individual : it is restricted only in the manner and to the extent provided by the indian contract act. partnership is under section 4 of the partnership act the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them ..... hindu undivided family is x x x x a 'person' within the meaning, of the indian income-tax act : it is however not a juristic person for all purposes, and can-not enter into an agreement of partnership with either another undivided family or individual. it is open to the manager of a joint ..... not become a partner, but only such of its members as in fact enter into a contractual relation with the stranger : the partnership will be governed by the act.it is clearly enunciated that one or more members of a hindu undivided family may enter into a contractual relation in the nature ..... years 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54 the income-tax officer granted, registration of the firm under section 26a of the indian income-tax act, 1922. in 1954-55 the income-tax officer declined to grant registration. in appeal the appellate assistant commissioner confirmed the order on the ground ..... of a partnership with a stranger and they qua the stranger become partners. the view expressed by the judicial committee was approved by this court in charandas haridas and anr. v. commissioner of income-tax, bombay north, kutch and saurashtra, ahmedabad and anr. : [1960]39itr202(sc) .5. the indian contract act imposes no .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 27 1970 (SC)

M.C. Sulkunte Vs. State of Mysore

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-27-1970

Reported in : AIR1971SC508; 1971CriLJ519; (1970)3SCC513; 1971(III)LC83(SC)

..... to show that the appellant in counter-signing the certificate issued by the medical officer of bidar, p.w. 27, was only doing a professional act by way of private practice and that he was entitled to payment of fees therefore. such a case requires investigation into facts, which were not brought ..... of the proceedings inter alia on the ground that the investigation had not been carried on by a designated officer under section 5-a of the act. the special judge went into the question in some detail and held that on the facts of the case there was administrative exigency to permit the ..... present at the headquarters! further the inspector did not tell him why he and not the high ranking officer mentioned in section 6-a of the act was going to investigate the case. in his cross-examination he stated that he felt that the matter was urgent and the offence was likely to ..... permission to an inspector of police, p. ramarao, to investigate the offence of criminal misconduct of obtaining illegal gratification.3. section 5-a of the act contains certain safeguards from undue harassment of public officers from enquiry by ensuring that the investigation in regard to the offences specified is conducted by a police ..... subsequently the state also filed criminal petition no. 126 of 1965 for enhancement of the sentence on the ground that under section 5(2) of the act the minimum punishment was to be not less than one year unless the court for special reasons thought fit to do otherwise. the reasons given by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 09 1970 (SC)

Erach F.D. Mehta Vs. Minoo F.D. Mehta

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-09-1970

Reported in : AIR1971SC1653; (1970)2SCC724; [1971]2SCR99

..... judgment of a single judge of the high court of bombay dismissing a petition under section 33 of the indian arbitration act, 1940.2. on december 22, 1966, the appellant and the respondent, who are brothers, entered into an agreement to carry on in partnership three businesses (1) messrs f.d. mehta & company; (2) the great western stores; and (3) dr. writer's ..... time being in force.3. disputes arose between the two partners. the respondent claimed that on january 17, 1968 the partners reached an oral agreement stipulating that the appellant shall retire from the partnership and shall assign and transfer to the respondent his ..... division of assets debts or liabilities to be made hereunder or as to any act deed or commission of either partner or as to any act which ought to be done by the partners in dispute or as to any other matter in any way relating to the partnership business or the affairs and transactions thereof or the rights, duties or liabilities of ..... either partner under these presents shall be referred to two arbitrators one to be appointed by each party to the difference in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the indian arbitration act, or any statutory modification thereof for the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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