Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Page 12 of about 36,503 results (0.095 seconds)

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 11 1962 (SC)

Tulsidas Khimji Vs. their Workmen

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1963SC1007; [1962(4)FLR453]; (1962)ILLJ435SC; [1963]1SCR675

..... in controversy between the parties relates to the question of bonus, both traditional or customary bonus and profit-sharing bonus. 2. the appellant are a partnership firm, registered under the indian partnership act, 1932, and have their office at 46, veer nariman road, fort, bombay 1. the firm carries on business in the name of messrs. ..... that unit since 1956. though a firm is regarded as an entity for the purpose of income tax act, it is undeniable that a partnership is not an entity at law and it is the partners who constitute the employers for all purpose other than for income tax. it ..... a real basis for computing the deduction under this head. in saying this i have not overlooked the fact that for the purpose of the indian income tax act a firm is a unit of assessment and that in the case of a registered firm there is a special 'registered firm' tax payable by ..... the reasoning and conclusion of my lord the chief justice that where the employer is a firm that is registered under section 26-a of the indian income tax act the income tax that the employer is entitled to deduct, is not the 'registered firm tax' on the gross profits of the firm but ..... the amount available after payment of the tax. the fact that certain items such as, for instance, the penalty payable for defaults under the income tax act or credits received thereunder which are unrelated to the normal tax payable on the income derived by the employer are ignored, does not imply that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 10 2001 (HC)

The Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi-iii, New Delhi Vs. Shri B.R. Chaw ...

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2001IIAD(Delhi)256; 90(2001)DLT181

..... assessed in spite of notice. learned counsel for the revenue submitted that in view of section 47 of the indian partnership act, 1932(for short the 'partnership act') and section 189 of the act, mere discontinuance or dissolution would be of no consequence and section 41 of the act was clearly applicable to the facts of the case. 4. section 41(1) at the relevant point of ..... 1968-69. subsequently a part of the duty was refunded by the excise department out of which rs.18,255/- were received by the assessed being the successor of the partnership firm. assessed took the stand that assessment of the firm which had paid the additional fees was still pending consideration and the expenditure may not be allowed as a deduction ..... was carrying on business under the name and style of m/s baldev raj and sons. previously m/s baldev raj and sons was the name and style of a partnership firm of which m/s lal chand, kidar nath, madho ram, bishamber prashad and b.s.chawla were the partners. assessed was the successor to the business which was being ..... '. merely because he was carrying on business in succession to the earlier partnership firm's business, that does not per se make him the 'assessed' covered under section 41(1). section 2(31) of the act defines 'person' to include an 'individual' and a 'firm' separately. section 2(7) of the act defines an 'assessed'. by no stretch of imagination the firm in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 1970 (HC)

Erandol Taluka Gramodyog, Utpadak Sahakari Society, Erandol Vs. Sunil ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1971Bom91; (1970)72BOMLR620; (1970)6CompLJ212(Bom); 1970MhLJ923

..... and a decree was passed in its favour. when the decree was sought to be executed, the judgment-debtor objected on the ground that under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act a suit by an unregistered firm was not maintainable and, therefore, the decree passed in favour of such unregistered firm was a nullity. the patna high court held that:--'the ..... the subject-matter of the suit or over the parties to it.3. section 164 of the maharashtra co-operative societies act is mandatory in its terms just like section 3 of the limitation act or section 69(1) of the indian partnership act, 1932. what section 164 does is to require that the requisite notice should be given prior to the institution of the ..... in section 69(2) is only to the institution of the suit. the plea of non-maintainability of a suit, on behalf of an unregistered firm under section 69(2), partnership act, is, as such, not available to a judgment-debtor at the execution stage. such an objection should be taken in the suit itself before the passing of the decree. if ..... , has no jurisdiction to go behind such a decree.' the bar to maintainability of the suitenacted in section 69(2) of the partnership act is in language identical with that of section 164 of the maharashtra co-operative societies act. the material provisions of section 69(2) are:--'no suit to enforce a right arisingfrom a contract shall be instituted in any court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 26 2000 (HC)

Prudential Engineers and ors. Vs. Kuskoor Bharath Ram

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2003KAR4617

..... , being the partners of the first petitioner - accused, are liable to face the prosecution and in that connection, placed reliance on section 25 of the indian partnership act, 1932, and, in any event, it is not a case, where the proceedings can be quashed under section 482 of cr. p.c. when ..... with it, as he was not at fault nor wrong in impleading all the partners as accused, when kept in mind section 25 of the partnership act. that being so, taking cognizance and issuing process against all the partners of the firm also by the trial court was not at all bad ..... said admitted facts constitute an offence punishable under section 138 of negotiable instruments act against all the partners of the firm or not5. section 25 of partnership act, on which the complainant relies, is as under:'25. liability of a partner for acts of the firm. - every partner is liable, jointly with all the ..... other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner.'6. section 141 of the negotiable instruments act, which ..... thus:'3........................the 2nd petitioner the managing partner of the firm, over-all looking after the affairs and management of the firm. as per the partnership deed 4th & 5th partners are the sleeping partners not at all involved in the affairs and management of the firm.'so also in paragraph no. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 1993 (HC)

Tity Thomas and ors. Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and anr.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : [1994]207ITR1072(Ker)

..... of a firm. it does not cast any new liability on the partners. such liability exists de hors section 188a, having regard to the provisions of section 25 of the indian partnership act which stands recognised otherwise in section 189. the decision of the full bench, in my view, only goes to the extent of interdicting proceedings under the ..... on the petitioners for the dues of the firm, gemini plantations. it cannot be doubted having regard to the provisions of section 25 of the indian partnership act that the partners are jointly and severally liable for all the acts of the firm while he was a partner. therefore, the partners are jointly and severally liable for the tax dues of the firm. in ..... that recovery proceedings could be only against the assessee in terms of the assessment order, without importing the notion of joint and several liability contained in section 25 of the partnership act. the words 'as the scheme of the act visualises proceedings being taken against the firm or the partners only if a liability is imposed under the provisions of the ..... or the partners only if a liability is imposed on them under the provisions of the act, any liability for the tax imposed on a firm as such under the act cannot be treated as the liability of the partners by importing the general principles of partnership law and therefore those dues of the firm cannot be recovered from the partners. in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 30 2008 (HC)

A.B. Patil Vs. Orissa Transport Service, Rep. by Its Branch Manager an ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2008(5)ALD473

..... firm who had accepted him as their agent. the counsel for appellant placed strong reliance on section 25 of the indian partnership act. section 25 of the said act deals with the liability of a partner for the acts of the firm and the said provision specifies that every partner is liable jointly with all the other partners and also ..... would be binding on the firm. the learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this court to section 25 of the indian partnership act and also section 2(a) and 2(b) of the said act and would maintain that in the light of the said provisions, the decree of the court of first instance to be restored ..... .b-1 is the cash statement issued by orissa transport service; ex.b-2 is the statement of account; ex.b-3 is the original deed of partnership dated 01.4.1983; ex.b-4 is the true copy of registration of the defendants' firm and ex.b-5 is the certified copy of judgment in ..... hand loan does not arise at all. defendant no. 1 was being a registered concern always represented by its partners in business dealings as per law of partnership. the erstwhile manager of defendant no. 1 firm by name govind singh was only an employer of the firm and he had no authority or power to ..... there is anything repugnant in the subject or context expressions used but not defined in this act and defined in the indian contract act, 1872 (9 of 1872) shall have the meaning assigned to them in that act.15. the evidence of p.w.1-appellant is clear and categorical about exs.a-1 to a-3. it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 03 1997 (HC)

Harbans Singh Vs. Firm Sunder Mal Sat Pal

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1997)117PLR882

..... . if issue no.1 is proved, whether the execution of both the pronotes or either of them is without consideration? opd4. whether the plaintiff firm is duly registered under the indian partnership act and shri chet ram is one of the partners? opp5. whether the plaintiff firm is a money lender? if so, its effect? opd6. whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest ..... /- to the plaintiff firm.3. the defendant contested the suit taking up various pleas like plaintiff firm carrying on business of money lending but having not been registered under the indian partnership act and the suit being not within limitation. on merit, it was denied that the defendant executed a pronote on 4.2.1975 as alleged by the plaintiff.4. on the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 1996 (HC)

M/S. Didi Modes Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. M/S. Hind Trading and Manufa ...

Court : Delhi

Reported in : AIR1996Delhi319

..... and damages. in the plaint, the case set up by the plaintiff is that the plaintiff firm is a joint hindu family partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act. the appellant company was the defendant in the suit, attorney to the partnership firm by paying license fee. the plaintiff firm had taken a plot b-243, phase i, new industrial area, new delhi from ..... premises forthwith.40. we have considered rival contentions of the parties when the instant case is seen in the perspective of well known norms and parameters as laid down by indian and english decisions, the conclusion becomes irresistible that whatever may be the label, form or nomenclature of the agreement, the courts must look to the substance of the matter ..... payments, street v. mountford 1985 (2) all er 289 : 1985 ac 809, establishes that in such a situation a tenancy is created.' 27. on careful analysis of leading and celebrated indian and english decisions following conclusions are irresistible:'(a) the courts while deciding controversy in cases of lease and/or license must gather the real intention of parties executing the document ..... . the crucial question for consideration in this case is whether the instrument executed between the parties creates a license or a lease. similar question has come up for consideration before indian and english courts in number of cases.11. the division bench of calcutta high court in ram pratap kayan v. the national petroleum co. ltd., : air1950cal23 , hasobserved as under:' .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 14 2003 (HC)

Kuldipkumar Girdhar Das and Co., a Registered Partnership Firm Through ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2003(4)ALLMR77; 2003(6)BomCR594; 2004(1)MhLj71

..... controversy raised in the present group of petitions, facts in the first petition (writ petition no. 3433 of 2003) may briefly be stated.6. the petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. it is a member of the federation of associations of maharashtra (fam). it is engaged in business of trading in jaggery since 1993. the petitioner is also ..... passed the following order:-'rule. returnable in eight weeks. rule on interim relief returnable in eight weeks. in the meantime respondents will not take any coercive action under the act.parties to act on copy of this order duly authenticated.'20. from the above order, it is clear that on writ petition, rule was issued, and was made returnable within eight ..... .'(emphasis supplied)24. it was submitted by the learned assistant government pleader on behalf of the authorities that coercive actions were being taken for violation of the provisions of the act and not for not possessing the licences as required by the amended provisions, which were made subject-matter of writ petition. according to the court, however, no further clarification ..... ii, turbhe, navi mumbai, along with jaggery inside lawfully traded under a licence possessed by the petitioner. that action was taken in purported exercise of powers under the bombay prohibition act, 1949 as amended in 2000, by which the definition of molasses has been amended so as to include jaggery / gur, vesting unfettered powers in the respondents, which would hinder .....

Tag this Judgment!

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