Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Page 11 of about 37,535 results (0.104 seconds)

Feb 11 1963 (SC)

Firm Girdhar Mal Kapur Chand Vs. Firm Dev Raj Madan Gopal

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1963SC1587; [1964]1SCR995

..... to the high court of punjab. in the defendant's appeal it was contended that the suit was not properly entertained as the plaintiff firm was not registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. it was also urged that the transactions were illegal being forward transactions in cotton and edible oil-seeds and thus prohibited by law. both these contentions were rejected by ..... were wagering contracts, and so void in law, that they being forward transactions were prohibited by law and further that the plaintiff firm was not a registered firm under the indian partnership act, and therefore the suit did not lie. 3. the trial court rejected all the contentions in law and accepted the plaintiff's story as regards the transactions but held as ..... country and thus ceased to be a registration for india. in our opinion, this argument is wholly unsound. once there was registration under the indian partnership act that registration, in our opinion, continues to operate as registration under that act and continues to be effective - in other words, valid registration in the eye of law as administered in india so long as the registration ..... are urged in support of this. the first is based on the requirement of s. 69(2) of the indian partnership act. it is no longer disputed that the firm was registered by the registrar of firms, punjab, on august 16, 1946, under the indian partnership act, 1932, as it stood on that date. that was an order made before the partition of india took place .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 11 1994 (SC)

Mrs. Kavita Trehan and Another Vs. Balsara Hygience Products Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1995SC441; JT1994(4)SC519; (1995)109PLR315; 1994(3)SCALE168; (1994)5SCC380; [1994]Supp1SCR340

..... , thus :two questions arise in this suit. the first one being whether the suit is liable to be dismissed in view of section 69 of the indian partnership act, partnership being unregistered on the date of filing of the suit and in case the suit is to be dismissed, the second question would be whether the parties ..... appellants. the suit came to be dismissed on the undisputed ground that it was hit by sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932. indeed, the appellants did not dispute the liability of the suit for such dismissal on the ground of non-registration of the ..... on the date of filing of the suit and as such the suit would be hit by the provisions of sub-section 2 of section 69 of the partnership act. the correctness of this view and the consequent dismissal of the suit are not questioned before us.6. on the second question, the learned single judge ..... orders of the learned sub-judge, 1st class, chandigarh. accordingly, the learned single judge, while dismissing the suit on the ground of non-registration of the partnership, issued the following directions :.plaintiffs are also directed to take out an fdr from a nationalised bank in the sum of rs. 25.40 lakhs in the ..... :.insofar as the first point is concerned, mr. sahai, learned counsel for the plaintiff fairly conceded that the suit is liable to be dismissed as the partnership was not registered on the date of institution of the suit. the position in law is that where the suit is filed by the partners it shall .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 28 2003 (HC)

R.K. Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2003IVAD(Delhi)557; III(2003)BC231; 105(2003)DLT199; 2003(69)DRJ694

..... are the original certificate of registration as well as as form a by virtue of which name of the plaintiff firm was registered as partnership firm and thereforee section 69 of the indian partnership act providing that on behalf of the partnership firm, only a partner can institute the suit cannot come to the rescue of the defendant and, thus, issue is decided in favor ..... that suit is liable to be dismissed for want of notice under section 53b of the delhi development act. 4. vide order dated 14.3.1996, following issues were framed:-1. whether the plaintiff is a partnership firm duly registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act? if not, what the effect?2. whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff is entitled to all ..... of the plaintiff.issue no. 38. p.w.1 shri h.s. dharam sattu, executive engineer of defendant-dda has admitted service of notice under section 53b of the delhi development act ..... wages of labour, etc. as averred in para 30 of the plaint.3. whether the suit suffers for want of statutory notice under section 53-b of the delhi development act?4. whether the property valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction?5. whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is liable to pay rs. 500/- per day on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 04 2001 (HC)

Sh. Mukesh Aggarwal Vs. State and Another

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 94(2001)DLT374; 2001(60)DRJ779

..... section 200 cr.p.c. adduced by the petitioner. civil liability for payment of amount of said cheque is distinct from criminal liability and the provisions of indian partnership act, thus, have no relevance in the matter. taking note of the ratio in ram kishan rohtagi's case (supra) no fault can be found with ..... a.k. singla for petitioner was that respondent no. 2 was / is responsible for conduct of business carried in partnership in the name of m/s. vogue apparels along with other partners under the indian partnership act, 1932 and the plea taken by her, she being not vicariously liable for the criminal liability arising out of ..... of the said paras of complaint it is alleged that respondent no. 2 / accused no. 3 was in charge of and was responsible to the partnership firm for conduct of its business or that she had consented or connived to the commission of said office within the meaning of above sub-section (2 ..... 141. it is pertinent to note that in para no. 1 of the complaint (ann.a) it is alleged that m/s. vogue apparels is a partnership firm of which accused 2, 3, 4 and 5 are the partners. in para no. 6 it is stated that accused no. 2 on behalf of ..... certificate of postings. however, despite service of notices the amount of cheque was not paid. accused had thus committed offence punishable under section 138 of the act. after recording pre-summoning evidence vide order dated 24th april 1998 the accused were summoned to face trial for the said offence. feeling aggrieved, the accused .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 25 1989 (HC)

Paulson Constructions Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Kerala

Reported in : (1989)80CTR(Ker)202; [1990]181ITR476(Ker)

..... of obtaining the refund as well as for assessment by virtue of sections 41 and 189 of the income-tax act read with section 47 of the indian partnership act, 1932.5. section 47 of the partnership act says that on the dissolution of a firm, the authority of each partner to bind the firm and the other ..... which has to be distributed among the partners and, therefore, by virtue of section 47 of the partnership act, the assessee-firm continued to exist for distributing the assets.6. under section 189 of the income-tax act, where any business or profession carried on by a firm has been discontinued or where a firm ..... its partners and for this limited purpose, the firm would continue under section 47 of the partnership act. if the firm continues for this purpose, it will have to be assessed also under section 189 of the income-tax act read with section 41.14. in the light of the above, our answer to the ..... and the assessment or reassessment of such a firm after dissolution can, under section 44 of the indian income-tax act, 1922, be made in the same manner under the income-tax act or the excess profits tax act as if it had not discontinued its business.'11. reference was made on behalf of the revenue ..... as the assessment of its pre-dissolution income is concerned and the assessment or reassessment of such a firm after dissolution under section 44 of the act could be made in the same manner under chapter iv as if it had not discontinued its business. in the present case, therefore, the assessment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 17 1992 (HC)

Kantilal Jethalal Gandhi Vs. Ghanshyam Ratilal Vyas

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : AIR1994Guj56; (1992)2GLR493

..... due payable to an unregistered firm, though dissolved, would be hit by the relevant provisions contained in s. 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (the 'act' for brief).4. it would be quite proper to look at s. 69 of the act in order to understand the challenge made to the impugned order passed by the learned trial judge. it reads:'effect of non ..... upon an unregistered partnership acquiring property or assets. all that it does is to make a suit instituted by an unregistered ..... an unregistered partnership making contracts either between the partners inter se or with some third party, nor ..... the continuance of the partnership. hence where an unregistered partnership has been dissolved, money due to the partnership from a third party in respect of dealing between him and the partnership during its subsistence can be recovered by means of a suit.'in the course at its judgment, it has also been held:'it is to be noticed that the partnership act places no prohibition upon .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 1989 (HC)

Additional Collector of Central Excise Vs. Kathiresan Pillai

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1989(42)ELT189(Mad)

..... well accepted position of a firm under the law of partnerships. we will quote the relevant passage from 'law of partnership in india' by s. d. singh and j. p. gupta (2nd edition). 'the indian partnership act goes further than the english partnership act, 1890 in recognising that a firm may possess a ..... personality distinct from the persons constituting it and is thus more in accordance with the law of scotland than with that of england. but the fact, that a firm possess a distinct personality does not involve that the personality continues unchanged so long as business of firm continues. the indian act ..... filed a suit either in its name or in the names of its partners. under order 30, rule 1, civil procedure code, it is the partnership firm alone which is entitled to file a suit in firm name. therefore, this well laid distinction cannot be obliterated as is sought to ..... like the english act avoids making a firm a corporate body enjoying the right or perpetual succession. it may be noted that a firm is not ..... was not taken note of. the licence was renewed in 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982. it was at that stage, he entered into a partnership in which savitri, kumaragurubaran and k. shanmugavelayudam were taken as partners. even after this, the application in form no. g.s. 6 as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 1989 (HC)

Additional Collector of Central Excise Vs. Kathivesan Pillai

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1989(42)ELT212(Mad)

..... cause notice tends to ignore the well accepted position of a 'firm' under the law of partnership. we will quote the relevant passage from law of partnership in india by s. d. singh and j. p. gupta, 2nd edition :- 'the indian partnership act goes further than the english partnership act, 1980 in recognising that a firm may possess a personality distinct from the persons constituting it and ..... is thus more in accordance with the law of scotland than with that of england. but the fact, that a firm possesses a distinct personality does not involve that the personality continues unchanged so long as business of the firm continues. the indian act ..... like a english act, avoids making a firm corporate body enjoying the right perpetual succession.' 'it may be noted that a firm is not a juristic person but is only compendious expression ..... its partners, a firm is entitled to file a suit in its own name or in the name of its partners. under order 30 rule 1, civil procedure code, it is the partnership firm alone which is entitled to file a suit in firm name.' therefore, this is well laid distinction cannot be obliterated as is sought to be done now. under these .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 18 1959 (HC)

Rajagopal Oil Mills, Shevapet and ors. Vs. Louis Dreyfus and Co. Ltd., ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1960Mad388

..... the joint family firm represented by the karta, and other parties. the distinction has been clearly recognised in s. 5 of the indian partnership act, and the following passage in mayne's hindu law (11th edition, p. 380) will be sufficient for this purpose.'it has ..... to hindu law governing a joint family, and to s. 5 of the indian partnership act.'we may here add that in desai on the 'law of partnership' (second edition, page 30), the distinction between the joint family firm and an ordinary commercial partnership; has been clearly set forth. upon this aspect, we need not add ..... and that his sons were not liable upon the contract. louis dreyfus and co. ltd. (plaintiffs) contended per contra that the first defendant firm was a partnership firm, with defendants 2, 3 and 4 as partners together. (after discussing the evidence the judgment proceeded:)(4) in view of all this evidence, we ..... of estoppel by conduct was stated long ago in pickard v. sears (1837) 6 ad & el 469, and has received statutory expression in the indian evidence act (section 115). the form in which it is usually stated is that:'where one by his words or conduct wilfully causes another to believe in the ..... that, under such circumstances, those members are estopped from denying the binding nature of the mortgage, on the ground that member had no power to act on behalf of the family.again, since it is clear that a prior transaction was approbated by second defendant, entered into with plaintiffs under identical circumstances .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 1960 (HC)

N.S.K.R. Karuppan Chettiar and anr. Vs. Ar. Vr. S. Somasundaram Chetti ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1961Mad122; [1961]31CompCas378(Mad); (1961)1MLJ323

..... counsel appearing for the appellants referred to us several sections of the indian partnership. act and contended that a firm of partnership is as good as an incorporated company. we are unable to perceive the relevance of the reference to the provisions of the indian partnership act; nor can we appreciate the soundness of the contention that a ..... laws of england, vol. ii, 3rd edn. at page 150, paragraph 277, the said terms are defined as follows :'a 'banker' is an individual, partnership or corporation, whose sole or predominating business is banking, that is the receipt of money on current or deposit account and the payment of cheques drawn by ..... defendants firm it must be taken to be an implied term of the contract that the repayment of the debt was to be in india in indian currency. a point, which was stressed by the learned counsel for the appellants to substantiate the contention that the deposits were repayable only at ..... not be open to the defendant firm to insist upon paying in burmese currency at dabein in respect of a loan obtained by him in indian currency.the court can take judicial notice of the fact that the rupee in burma today is of a different value from the rupee in ..... performed.'in the present case all the contracting parties, the plaintiffs and defendants are permanent residents of india. the amounts deposited were in terms of indian currency. it is true that at the time when the deposits were made burma was a part of india. when one nattukottai chettiar lends money .....

Tag this Judgment!


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