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!
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1987)63CTR(All)345; 166ITR698(All); 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!
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!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1587; 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!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC441; JT1994(4)SC519; (1995)109PLR315; 1994(3)SCALE168; (1994)5SCC380; 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!
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!
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!
Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1989)76CTR(Ker)85; 177ITR518(Ker)
..... also by the commissioner of income tax (appeals). in second appeal, the appellate tribunal held that in view of section 189 of the income-tax act, section 47 of the indian partnership act, 1932, and the decision of the supreme court in saligram ruplal khanna v. kanwar rajnath, air 1974 sc 1094, the rights and liabilities of ..... .7. we now turn to the two original petitions filed by the revenue. in the light of section 189 of the income-tax act, read with section 47 of the indian partnership act and the decision of the supreme court in saligram ruplal khanna's case, air 1974 sc 1094, and on the facts of this case ..... it may be only for the purpose of winding up the affairs of the firm. in the light of section 47 of the partnership act and section 189 of the income-tax act, understood in the context of the decision of the supreme court in saligram ruplal khanna's case, air 1974 sc 1094, we ..... no. 113 of 1978. finally, the matter was settled out of court. the suit was dismissed on february 29, 1980. a regular deed of dissolution of partnership was executed by all the partners of the firm on february 22, 1980. it stated that the firm stood dissolved with effect from may 22, 1978. the ..... 23, 1978, to march 31, 1979, should be made in the status of a 'firm' and further whether depreciation allowance is allowable. there was an original partnership deed dated july 19, 1971. it was superseded by another deed dated june 4, 1975. disputes arose among the partners. one of them issued notice to the .....Tag this Judgment!
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!
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!