Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Page 100 of about 35,914 results (0.111 seconds)

Sep 05 2017 (HC)

Sesa International Limited Vs. Avani Projects and Infrastructure Limit ...

Court : Kolkata

..... does not convert the relationship between the parties as anything other than the relationship between the partners.the question is whether a single venture agreement can be a partnership. section 8 of the indian partnership act deals with such a situation. section 8 makes it clear that a person may become a partner with any person in particular adventure or undertaking. therefore, the term ..... is clear that the said agreement demonstrates the relationship between the persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business. if the definition of the partnership as given under section 4 of the indian partnership act is analysed, it will be clear that it has three components: a) agreement must be entered into by all persons; b) agreement must be to ..... ltd.versus cityscape developers pvt.ltd., a.p.no.237 of 1998. mr.mitra has relied upon the following passages from the said decision in support of his submission:- partnership has been defined under section 4 of the indian partnership act as the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them ..... business, which has been used in section 4 of the said indian partnership act, may consist of even a single commercial adventure on which the parties may embark. such instances of a particular partnership may take various forms including the development of a parcel of land. (see the judgment of the division bench of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 1981 (HC)

Singh Brothers and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Guwahati

..... that in addition to the clauses of the instrument, the partners should be bound by the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932. on a reference the high court held that unless the instrument of partnership had specified the shares of the partners not only in the profits but also in the losses, the firm ..... of the authorities below and dismissed the appeal of the assesses. the learned tribunal considered the provisions of section 30, indian partnership act, 1932, and held that the minor could not be 'a partner' though such a minor could be admitted to the benefits of the ..... the invalidity of the instrument dated january 7, 1967. section 30 of the indian partnership act, 1932, prohibits a minor to be a full-fledged partner. a minor is legally incompetent to enter into a partnership agreement with others and to act as a partner in a firm. he can be admitted to the benefits ..... divided or borne between the partners in equal shares where one of such partners was a minor, the instrument violated section 30 of the partnership act and the partnership was invalid. as the document was invalid, the application for registration as well as the renewal for the subsequent years were violative of the ..... the supreme court held that such an instrument of the nature and character like the present one was invalid as violative of section 30 of the partnership act. although their lordships observed that there was no need to answer the question as to whether the firm could be registered on the basis of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 08 1976 (HC)

Vasantrao Vs. Shyamrao

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : [1977]47CompCas669(Bom); 1975MhLJ337

..... entire controversy submitted has something to do with the application of the provisions of part x of the indian companies act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the companies act'), as urged, excluding the operation per force the statute of chapter vi of the indian partnership act, 1932 (hereinafter called 'the partnership act'). indeed, the main plank of submission is that in a suit purporting to have been filed under ..... chapter vi of the partnership act, if the partnership in issue consists of more than seven partners, but below twenty, on the date of the suit for ..... persons to carry on business other than the business of banking having its object for acquisition of gain, unless such association or partnership is registered as a company under the act or it is formed in pursuance of some other indian law. it is not necessary for the purpose of the present revision to consider the scope and amplitude of the words ..... in pursuance of some other indian law'; suffice it so say that presumably and ex facie, these words indicate the formation of the companies or associations or partnerships by the law. now, 'company' which is a juridical person is required to be formed and registered to be the company as such because of section 3 of the act. the term 'company' .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 08 1976 (HC)

Vasantrao Dattaji Dhanwatay and anr. Vs. Shyamrao Dattaji Dhanwatay an ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1977Bom188; 1976MhLJ836

..... the entire controversy submitted has something to do with the application of provisions of part x of the indian companies act, 1956 (hereinafter called the companies act), as urged, excluding the operation per force the statute of chapter vi of indian partnership act, 1932 (hereinafter called the partnership act). indeed, the main plank of submission is that in a suit purporting to have been filed under ..... chapter vi of the partnership act, if the partnership in issue consists of more than seven partners, but below twenty, on the date of the suit for dissolution ..... persons to carry on business other than the business of banking, having its object for acquisition of gain, unless such association or partnership is registered as a company under act or it is formed in pursuance of some other indian law. it is not necessary for the purpose of the present revision to consider the scope and amplitude of the words ' ..... in pursuance of some other indian law'; suffice it to say that presumably and ex facie these words indicate the formation of the companies or associations or partnerships by the law. now 'company' which is a juridical person is required to be formedand registered to be the company as such because of section 3 of the act. the term 'company' which .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 22 1993 (HC)

Swiss Bank Corporation and Canara Bank Vs. Jai Hind Oil Mills Co. and ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1994(1)BomCR371; [1997]90CompCas518(Bom)

..... defendant no. 2, swiss bank.the defendants claimed that the suit was not maintainable in view of the bar of provisions of sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act.sub-section (2) of section 69 reads as follows :'69. (2) no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any court by or on ..... ?(2) whether the plaintiff firm was not registered. suit not duly registered, and if not, whether maintainable. (para. 13/the suit was maintainable under section 14,69(2) of the indian partnership act ?(3) whether the documents were yes. (para 15116)presented by credit bank to swiss bank on october 21, 1985 ?(4) whether swiss bank was required no. scrutiny and accept-to ..... suing are or have been shown in the register of firms as partners in the firm.'the plaint sets out that jai hind 011 mills are a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act. a partnership firm is not an independent legal entity and merely represents a trade name of the actualpartners. the appellants claim that under section 69 of the ..... filed by defendant no. 1. the facts giving rise to institution of the suit are as follows : the plaintiffs (jai hind 011 mills co.) are a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932, and carry on the business of dealing in the manufacture of various types of edible oils and are also engaged in the business of importing and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 17 1997 (HC)

Kishore Kumar B. Zaveri and Another Vs. Navinchandra H. Somaiya and Ot ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1998Bom153; 1998(1)ALLMR579; 1998(4)BomCR75; (1998)2BOMLR82

..... would not be possibleto hold that the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 69(2) or section 69(2-a) of the indian partnership act. these averments have also been fortified by the clear admissions by the defendant no. 1 himself in the letter dated 11th july, 1994. at this stage, ..... by the counsel. in order to resolve the controversy, it would be necessary to reproduce the provisions of section 69(2) and (2-a) of the indian partnership act, 1932, which are as under :'(2) no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf ..... has a right to collect the rent, for and on behalf of the other co-owners, as they do not have the right of agency, as provided in the indian partnership act. the defendant no. 1 has, therefore, wrongly collected the rent for the months of july, august, september, november, december 1994, january 1995, february, march, ..... staled that the aforesaid pleadings make it abundantly clear that the suit is barred in view of a the provisions of section 69(2-a) of the indian partnership act, 1932.4. mr. gala has submitted that the suit is liable to be dismissed on account of the operation of the bar as contained under ..... of motion has been taken out by the defendants with a prayer that the suit be dismissed as being barred under section 69(2-a) of the indian partnership act. in the event of prayer (a) not being granted, it is prayed that the plaint be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 07 2009 (HC)

Ravinder Singh Ahluwalia of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant Vs. Kuljinder Sin ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2009(4)BomCR84

..... name of respondent no. 2, the widow of rajinder and are pledged with idbi.33. once the firm is dissolved, the various provisions of the indian partnership act take its own course as noted above. it means, proper equal distribution of the property subject to liability if any and in the present case, unless ..... there exists dispute with regard to the property of the firm. the shares are the property of the firm as contemplated under section 14 of the partnership act, 1932 or not is again a matter of trial and inquiry. the parties or the partners of the firm cannot blow hot and cold, subject ..... 1 and 2 have equal shares. on 16.12.2008 the said suit was dismissed in view of the bar under section 69(1) of the partnership act, 1932. respondent no. 1 preferred an appeal on 22.01.2009 before the division bench of this court.10. respondent no. 2, after transmitting ..... as per the supreme court judgment in arjun kanoji tanker v. santaram kanoji tanker : (1969)3scc555 which is based upon section 14 of the partnership act, it is held that unless there is an express or implied agreement, the individual partner's property cannot be treated or assumed to have become the ..... for the basic reason that section 9 petition cannot be said to be a suit as contemplated under section 69 of the partnership act. such application under section 9 of the act though the partnership deed is unregistered, is maintainable. a division bench of bombay high court in masood mohmmed hussain v. gulam rasul mohammedali and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 25 1993 (HC)

Narainji Vishram Chhatbar Vs. Kiran Gajendra Mehta

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1994(3)BomCR286

..... arbitrator for adjudication. on behalf of the defendant, however the suit is opposed at the stage of admission, inter-alia contending that the alleged partnership being not registered under section 69 of the indian partnership act the suit filed seeking reference to the arbitrator is not competent and maintainable. this is apart from the fact that the defendant has denied ..... r. 1964, s.c. 1832, held and concluded that the nature of dispute between the partners in respect of the unregistered partnership is one that squarely falls under the provisions of section 69(c) of the indian partnership act and therefore the suit filed seeking arbitration will be incompetent and therefore not maintainable. 6. the ratio in chandulal's case which ..... there being partnership as alleged. on the legal aspect, i heard both the learned advocates. mr. jain has referred to decisions, namely ;1. : air1968ap378 shri baba ..... gindodiva, 3. : air1959cal660 , abdul razaak v. mashiruddin ahmed. 4. relying upon the above decisions, the learned advocate for the plaintiff contends that the suit, notwithstanding the partnership being unregistered is competent. whereas on behalf of the respondent the latest division bench judgment of our high court in appeal no. 296 of 1989 in arbitration petition no. 1455 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 1952 (HC)

S. Ahmed Khan Vs. Turup Mohamed Hayat

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1953Kant4; AIR1953Mys4

..... no substance in the contention either that the suit is not maintainable in the form in which it is brought or that section 69(1) of the indian partnership act is a bar to it.9. in the result, this appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the learned district judge_ are set aside and ..... govinda rao next contends that the plaintiff's suit even on the basis of such a claim is barred under section 69(1) of the indian partnership act as has been held by the learned district judge. section 69(1) provides that no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by ..... paid the entire tax and sued the defendant for contribution. beaumont c.j. held that the language of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 69, partnership act, is wide enough to cover suits relating to a dissolved firm and sub-section (1) covers a suit by a plaintiff suing in respect of a right ..... liability after or at the time of the dissolution. the claim for payment was therefore construed in that case as based on the relationship of partnership and arising directly under the provisions of the partnership act. that case was followed by grille j. of the nagpur high court in -- 'chhotelal nanakram v. gopaldas gulabdas' . he held ..... he had paid on behalf of the defendant under section 70 or section 69 of the contract act. but as the case stood the plaintiff had to base his claim on the relationship arising out of the partnership and he could not therefore recover.in that case there was also no agreement relied on between .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 1966 (HC)

R. Sannappa and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : [1967]66ITR27(KAR); [1967]66ITR27(Karn); (1967)1MysLJ64

..... 'specifying the individual shares of the profits of the partners'. so far as the sharing of the losses is concerned, the same is regulated by section 13(b) of the indian partnership act. that section to the extent it is relevant for our purpose, says : 'subject to contract between the partners -........ (b) the partners are entitled to share equally in the profits earned ..... the assessment of the assessee under section 23. 'firm' is defined in section 2(6b) of the act and that definition runs thus : ''firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' have the same meaning respectively as in the indian partnership act, 1932 (ix of 1932),...' 10. in commissioner of income-tax v. bagyalakshmi & co. the supreme court laid down that except where there is a specific provision of ..... proving that they are not liable for loss lies on persons who so assert. if section 26a of the act is read with sections 4 and 13(b) of the indian partnership act, it would be seen that if an instrument of partnership specifies the individual shares of the partners in the partnership profits, without more, it follows that the losses, if any, incurred by the ..... partnership should also be shared in the same proportion in which the profits are to be shared by them. in the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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