Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Page 10 of about 37,547 results (0.103 seconds)

Jan 24 2007 (HC)

Pochareddy Radhakrishna Reddy Vs. Gopalakrishna Rice Mill

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2007(5)ALD162

..... defendant cannot change the state of things during the pendency of the suit. in virendra dresses v. varinder garments : air1982delhi482 , it was held that under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 a suit to enforce a right arising from a contract against a third party is barred unless the firm is registered and the application of bar under section 69 ..... . p.w.1 is the managing partner of the plaintiff-firm and d.w.1 is the defendant in the suit.10. the bar of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 in the context of the maintainability of the suit had been argued in elaboration and both courts recorded certain findings in this regard and on appreciation of the language ..... argued in elaboration by the learned counsel representing the appellant is as hereunder:whether the suit is maintainable in view of the bar imposed by section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932? 3. the unsuccessful defendant in both the courts below preferred the present second appeal. the respondent herein - the plaintiff sri gopalakrishna rice mill, gudur, represented by its managing partner ..... (2) of the act aforesaid does not extend to the enforcement of rights not arising from contract. section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 reads as hereunder:effect of non-registration:-(1) no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 20 2001 (HC)

Gundu Preemsagar and ors. Vs. Nagabandi Jayashankar

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2002(1)ALD554

..... . dr. k.c. govind rao, 1990 (1) alt 52 (nrc).6. as regards the question of subtenancy, it was submitted having regard to the provisions of section 4 of the indian partnership act, and original tenant had never parted with the possession of the premises as a firm had been constituted with one of the family members. if was further submitted that the ..... a family member in the name of the firm will amount to sub-letting within the meaning of a.p. buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control act, 1960 in the light of the provisions of indian partnership act?2. the revision petition arises out of an order of the learned principal senior civil judge, warangal in rca no. 5 of 1994 confirming an order ..... business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. therefore, the partnership business can be carried by any one of them.38. thus, if a person takes ..... of the apex court, it cannot be said that running of a press as a partnership concern would amount to subletting or parting with the possession. to the same effect is the decision in sri sal baba cloth emporium case. section 4 of the indian partnership act clearly defines 'partnership' to mean the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 1978 (SC)

Tolaram Bijoy Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Assam

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1978SC504; [1978]112ITR750(SC); (1978)2SCC98; [1978]2SCR834; 1978(10)LC180(SC)

..... male issue of the acquirers does not take interest in it by birth (section 221, sub. section 2). if it is partnership property, it is governed by the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932, so that the share of each of the joint acquirers will pass on his death to his heirs, and not ..... whether the property so acquired is joint family property, or whether it is merely the joint property of the joint acquirers, or whether it is ordinary partnership property. if it is joint family property, the male issue of the acquirers take an interest in it by birth (section 221, sub-section ( ..... .3. we then come to the relevant assessment year 1960-61, when tolaram made a similar claim to separate assessment of income derived from, the partnership business in petrol amounting to rs. 21,746/-. the income-tax officer rejected this claim. the appellate assistant commissioner also, on an appeal, after ..... deed of partnership executed by the three brothers on 7th april, 1949. in this deed, it was admitted that the business had been carried on previous to the partition as hindu undivided family business.2. on 19th september, 1950, an application was made under section 25a of the income-tax act, 1922, ..... to record and register the partition. this was done on 17th august, 1954. on 28th march, 1959, the firm of m/s. nathmal tolaram was dissolved and a new firm nathmal tolaram (petrol depot) came into existence. in the assessment year, 1959-60 tolaram claimed that his share in the partnership .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 11 1972 (SC)

Shere-e-punjab Silk Stores Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1973SC2401; [1973]88ITR421(SC); (1973)4SCC206; [1973]3SCR76

..... that previous year.(ii) before the end of the previous year in any other case.(b) where the firm is registered under the indian partnership act, 1932 (ix of 1932), or where the deed of partnership is registered under the indian registration act, 1908 (xvi of 1908), before the end of the previous year of the firm, and(c) where the application is for renewal of ..... , 1953, be made before the 28th february, 1953, and for any year of assessment subsequent thereto, be made.(a) where the firm is not registered under the indian partnership act 1932 (ix of 1932), or where the deed of partnership is not registered under the indian registration act, 1908 (xvi of 1908), and the application for registration is being made for the first time under the ..... , 3 and 6. these rules read thus :-rule 2-any firm constituted under an instrument of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners may, under the provisions of section 26a of the indian income-tax act, 1922 (hereinafter in these rules referred to as the act), register with the income-tax officer, the particulars contained in the said instrument on application made in ..... act.(i) within a period of six months of the constitution of the firm or before the end of the 'previous year' of the firm whichever is earlier, if .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 21 1996 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhadra Enterprises (No. 1)

Court : Kerala

Reported in : [1997]228ITR645(Ker)

..... which services may be of a variegated character. in the process the apex court proceeds that when a partnership firm comes into existence, it can be predicated of it that it carries on a business, because partnership according to section 4 of the indian partnership act 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. the court made these observations as a distinguishing feature with regard to the activities ..... to carry on a business.'11. it would be seen that the discussion leading to the conclusion that when there is no business, is against the basic provisions of the partnership act (sic). partnership is essentially a relation of persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them ..... existed during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year in question. the essence of the definition of section 4 ofthe partnership act is that a partnership is an agreement to share the profits of a business. if we analyse the requirements of section 4, it is very clear that one of the requirements should be that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 06 2011 (SC)

M/S. Gammon India Ltd. Vs. Commnr. of Customs

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... taken by the tribunal is clearly erroneous. it was contended that since a joint venture is a legal entity with all the trap pings of a partnership under the indian partnership act, 1932, the general principles of the said act were applicable to the joint venture and, therefore, any one of the two partners of the joint venture, viz. gammon and atlanta was competent to ..... companies might join to gether. accordingly, the appeal of nhl was allowed and it was held that it was a joint venture company in the nature of a partnership be tween the indian group of companies and singapore based company which had jointly undertaken the commercial venture by contributing assets and sharing risks. applying the principle oflifting the corpo rate veil , ..... concept of joint venture, the court observed thus: 24. the expressionjoint ventureis more frequently used in the united states. it connotes a legal entity in the nature of a partnership engaged in the joint undertaking of a particular transaction for mutual profit or an association of persons or companies jointly undertaking some commercial enterprise wherein all contribute assets and share ..... the matter to this court. explaining the concept of joint venture in detail, it was held that a joint venture is a legal entity in the nature of a partnership en gaged in the joint undertaking of a particular transaction for mutual profit or an association of persons or companies jointly undertaking some commercial enterprise wherein all contributed assets and .....

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!

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!

Mar 04 1987 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Agency Hamdard Waqf Limited

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : (1987)63CTR(All)345; [1987]166ITR698(All); [1987]31TAXMAN495(All)

..... any partner. in the absence of such a clause, it may be necessary to determine the position emerging as a result of the law contained under the provisions of the indian partnership act. in such a situation, the conduct of the surviving partners may also be relevant. in view of the changed position in the law and in the absence of material and ..... of the income for the entire previous year. in our opinion, this is the correct legal position. it thus appears that under the general law of partnership under the indian partnership act as well as under the income-tax acts, the position is that a firm retains its identity and assessable entity in case of its reconstitution. it is hence the same person. ' 8. thus ..... of the firm, died on june 10, 1979, and smt. quamarunnisa retired from the firm. the remaining three partners along with saghir ahmad and athar hussain entered into a new partnership to carry on business from june 11, 1979. the assessee-firm filed two returns of income, one for the period april 1, 1979, to june 10, 1979, and the other ..... separate assessments for the aforesaid two periods. the income-tax officer was of the opinionthat the assessee's case was fully covered by the provisions of section 187 of the act and, therefore, there should be one single assessment for both the periods. after working out the income of the two periods separately, the income-tax officer framed one consolidated assessment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 25 2005 (HC)

Santu Prasad Das and anr. Vs. Eastern Coal Field Limited and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Reported in : AIR2006Jhar24; 2005(3)BLJR1709; [2005(3)JCR416(Jhr)]

..... (in m.s. no. 40/87) with respect to contract nos. 5 and 6 of 1978 as barred under section 30, rule 2 read with section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, apart from evidences oral and documentary, which have been discussed in detail by the court below.11. so far as the relief granted in respect to contract nos. 4 and ..... the firm, is found to be based on legal aspect. the registration of a partnership firm before the registrar of firm is conditions precedent for filing a suit by a partnership firm or by any of its partner on behalf of the firms under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act. as such, i find no illegality in deciding this issue by the court ..... the work done and completed by the plaintiffs (appellants). it is well settled that the recovery of amount advanced to any borrower comes under the domain of public demand recovery act, and therefore, the banking institution, dealing with the public money, cannot be injuncted from realizing the same through the process of law by any order in suit out of the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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