Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Page 14 of about 35,914 results (0.094 seconds)

Apr 19 1999 (HC)

Krishna Bhagwan Agarwal and Another Vs. Ist Additional District Judge, ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 1999(2)AWC1753

..... by vishnu bhagwan. he had no concern with the firm business. it is also a common case of the parties that it was a partnership at will. under the provisions of section 43 of the indian partnership act. a partnership at will may be dissolved by any partner giving notice in writing to all the other partners of his intention to dissolve the firm. the ..... a party but protects the rights of the injured party by keeping intact, where a partner excludes another from the management of the partnership affairs, a case is made out for appointment of a receiver and this doctrine has been acted upon even where the defendant contends that the plaintiff is not a partner or that he has no interest in the ..... partnership firm, or apart from non-cooperation of one of the partners in the management, if the quarrels are such as to occasion a complete deadlock in ..... a nature as to show that he is no longer to be trusted, as for example, he is carrying on trade of his own with partnership property or if there is any mismanagement which may endanger the whole concern or if that partner is acting in a manner inconsistent with his duties and obligations or has excluded other partner from fruits of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 20 1963 (SC)

Sait Nagjee Purushotham and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1967SC617; [1964]51ITR849(SC); [1964]6SCR91

..... under the scottish law. but under the english common law, a firm is not regarded as a separate entity from the members composing it. the indian partnership act has accepted the english common law though mercantile usages have crept into business accountancy and the civil procedure code allows a firm to sue or be sued in the ..... only an individual but also a firm. this is also clear from the words "not being merely a change in the constitution of a partnership." since the in- come-tax act assesses a partnership as a unit and such units (1) civil appeal no. 455 of 1963 decided on dec. 13, 1963. must, in the ..... firms in respect of different businesses carried on by them for the purpose of the indian income-tax act. where they do this, it is mainly a question of fact whether there has been a succession to one of such partnership or not, whether for the purpose of s. 26 or for the purpose of ..... or vocation on which tax was at any time charged under the provisions of the indian income-tax act, 1918, is succeeded in such capacity by another person, the change not being merely a change in the constitution of a partnership, no tax shall be payable by the first mentioned person in respect of the ..... or vocation on which tax was at any time charged under the provisions of the indian income-tax act, 1918, is succeeded in such capacity by another person, the change not being merely a change in the constitution of a partnership, no tax shall be payable by the first mentioned person in respect of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 01 2007 (HC)

Subhash Chander Chachra and ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Chachra and anr.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2007(1)ARBLR288(Delhi); 137(2007)DLT401; 2007(95)DRJ55

..... to complete the transaction begun, but unfinished at the time of dissolution. this is so provided in section 47 of the indian partnership act, 1932. while dealing with section 47 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the hon'ble supreme court held that the word 'transaction' in section 47 refers not merely to commercial ..... to third parties to the fullest extent, for the debts and liabilities incurred prior to dissolution, and, subject to section 47 of the indian partnership act, 1932, in respect of liabilities incurred even thereafter. thereforee, merely to say that there are outstanding liabilities to the tune of rs. 50 ..... in the way of the arbitral tribunal in issuing interim direction of the kind that it did.20. section 48 of the indian partnership act, 1932 states that in settling the accounts of a firm after dissolution, various claims are to be settled in the order of ..... arbitral tribunal, primarily, on the ground that the said order is contrary to section 48 of the indian partnership act. the submission is that the claim before the arbitral tribunal is for dissolution of the partnership businesses between the parties and unless the accounts are taken and all the debts and liabilities of ..... the question that arises for consideration is; has the arbitral tribunal, while passing the interim directions, proceeded under section 48 of the indian partnership act, 193224. in my opinion, the answer is plainly in the negative. the stage for settlement of accounts has not yet arrived. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 1975 (HC)

Narayan Prasad Vijaivargiya Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : [1976]102ITR748(Cal)

..... fullfledged partner and given all the rights and subjected to all the liabilities of a partner. hence, according to the learned counsel, the deed goes beyond section 30 of the indian partnership act, 1932, and registration was rightly refused. learned counsel has relied on the case of commissioner of income-tax v. dwarkadas khetan & co. he has also referred to the cases in ..... was refused on the ground that the clause relating to the share of losses by the minor contravened section 30(3) of the indian partnership act, 1932. it was held by the kerala high court that section 30(3) of the indian partnership act only prohibited the imposing of any personal liability on the minors; all that it did, in effect, was to provide that the ..... messrs. hariprasad madanlal vijaivargiya of akra phatak, p.o., bartala, district 24-parganas (as also of akra station, p.o. batanagar, dist. 24-parganas) registered under the indian partnership act, 1932, with the registrar of firms, in july, 1957, the registration number being 32347 (memo. no. 34707) and (7) shri nanda kishore vijaivargiya, a minor son of late madanlal vijaivargiya, ..... make him a full partner. in our view the deed cannot be said to go beyond the provisions of section 30 of the indian partnership act, 1932, and, therefore, it cannot be regarded as invalid. as, in our opinion, the partnership deed dated november 9, 1959, is a valid document refusal of its registration cannot be uphold. in the aforesaid view of the matter .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 19 1975 (HC)

Mahabir Prasad Kishanlal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Guwahati

..... is not a genuine firm in existence the income-tax officer is required to consider the validity of the deed of partnership. if such a deed of partnership is invalid in law offending any of the provisions of the indian contract act or the indian partnership act, 1932, the income-tax officer may legally hold that the registration was obtained without there being a firm in existence ..... partnership. it is thus found that the agreement of partnership in question is contrary to the relevant provisions of the indian contract act and the indian partnership act itself. that being so, the partnership deed is invalid, and, therefore, the income-tax officer in exercising his power for cancellation is justified ..... behalf of the minors. it is not a caseof the partners agreeing to admit some minors to the benefits of the partnership as provided under sub-section (1) of section 30 of the indian partnership act. the partnership in terms has sought to make the minors also full fledged partners and it has been stated that their respective fathers have agreed to enter into the ..... and such registration is liable to be cancelled in exercise of powers under rule 6b.12. section 4 of the indian partnership act defines 'partnership' as the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 23 1992 (HC)

Deorah and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Guwahati

..... there is, however, no agreement to treat the firm as continuing notwithstanding the death of a partner, the partners have no option to treat the firm as continuing. under the indian partnership act, 1932, the firm gets dissolved and the income-tax officer is not entitled to ignore this consequence. there is nothing in the language of section 187, 188 or 189, according ..... persons. his decision was confirmed by the superior authorities including the tribunal, but the high court overruled the same. it was argued for the revenue that section 42 of the indian partnership act, 1932, which stipulated, inter alia, that subject to contract between the partners a firm is dissolved with the death of a partner, applies only to a ..... of them died, the death being followed by taking in new partners. by virtue of section 2(23) of the act, the expressions 'firm', 'partner', 'partnership', have the same meaning as assigned to them in the indian partnership act, 1932. according to the definition, partnership is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any ..... that pursuant to the wishes or the directions of the deceased partner the surviving partner may enter into a new partnership with the heir of the deceased partner, but that would constitute a new partnership. in this light section 31 of the indian partnership act falls in line with section 42 thereof.' (emphasis supplied).19. the supreme court held that for the relevant assessment year .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 2005 (HC)

Jayesh Pandya Vs. Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2005(5)BomCR725

..... i held that two preliminary issues are answered as under :issue no. 1: the suit is not maintainable in view of section 69 of the indian partnership act.issue no. 2: the suit is not maintainable in as much as the plaintiff has filed the present suit without withdrawing the suit no. 1991 ..... not registered under section 59 and, therefore, the suit could not have been instituted against the defendant in view of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act. this defect was not a formal defect and, therefore, permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the suit and granting liberty to file a fresh suit was ..... a fresh suit on the same cause of action was rejected. when the suit was filed, the firm was not registered under section 59 of the indian partnership act, 1932, it was registered on 28th april 2000 i.e. after the suit was filed. therefore, the plaintiff wanted to withdraw the suit with ..... . i had earlier framed two issues as preliminary issues. they are :(1) whether the suit is maintainable in view of section 69 of the indian partnership act; in the said order section 67 was quoted. by consent it was corrected.(2) whether the suit is maintainable in as much as the plaintiff ..... registrar within a period of one year from the date of constitution of the firm. this maharashtra amendment came into force by the indian partnership (maharashtra amendment) act, 1984 (maharashtra act xxix of 1984) with effect from 1.1.1985. therefore, he contended that the registration could not have been granted in 2000 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 1952 (HC)

A.A. Khan and ors. Vs. Ameer Khan and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1952Kant131; AIR1952Mys131; ILR1951KAR486; (1953)31MysLJ103

..... has been held to belong to them together with interest thereon or a share of the profits, whichever they choose, in accordance with the principle of section 37 of the indian partnership act. that section provides: 'where any member of a firm has died or otherwise ceased to be a partner, and the surviving or continuing partners carry on the business of the ..... the present was therefore void and could not form the basis of a suit for dissolution and accounts. he has referred to some provisions of the indian partnership act and to some decided cases.the definition of partnership according to section 4 is that it 'is the relationship between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all ..... of h; nor could he, being a minor, enter into a contract with b to form a partnership. ii was observed in that case that there being no partnership in existence, the provisions of section 247 of the indian contract act (which corresponds to section 30 of the indian partnership act) could not be applied in his favour. in 'v. manic kavelu mudahar v. commr. of income ..... tax, mysore', 10 mys. l.j. 316 it has been observed that a minor cannot himself create a partnership and admit himself to the benefits of the same. in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 25 1990 (HC)

Kommineni Krishna Rao Vs. Kommineni Babjee Rao and Another

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1991AP232

..... first defendant and not in the name of the firm, the parties are relegated to the status of co-owners from that of the partners and therefore, the provisions of indian partnership act relating to dissolution of the firm and rendition of accounts cannot be resorted to.31. the first defendant in his written statement clearly admitted the allegation in the plaint that ..... first defendant and not in the name of the firm, the parties are relegated to the status of co-owners from that of partners and therefore, the provisions of the indian partnership act relating to the dissolution of the firm and rendition of accounts cannot be resorted to. therefore, the plaintiff and defendants are co-owners or co-sharers in respect of the ..... hit by s. 69 of the partnership act? 2. whether the suit partnership is illegal and opposed to public policy and hit by s. 23 of the contract act? 7. the learned trial judge on consideration of the entire material placed before him held that the suit partnership is illegal and opposed to s. 23 of the indian contract act and that the suit is not maintainable ..... full bench referred to : air1950mad444 (fb) (supra). the learned trial judge held that the suit for dissolution and for accounts is not maintainable as the partnership is illegal and is hit by s. 23 of the indian contract act.16. the learned judges of the division bench, in the case referred to : air1986ap84 (supra), after referring to the contentions raised on both the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 1993 (HC)

B. Janardhan Gupta (Died) and anr. Vs. B. Padmanabha Gupta

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1993(2)ALT419

..... is not filed within three years from the date of dissolution of the firm, is not correct.19. section 48(b)(iv) of the indian partnership act is in following terms:'48. mode of settlement of accounts between partners:- in settling the accounts of a firm after dissolution, the following rules shall ..... entitled to share profits.'20. relying upon sub-clause (iv) of clause (b) of section 48 of the indian partnership act, the learned counsel submits that after the dissolution of the partnership, as there are no liabilities for the firm, the properties that remained as assets of the firm have necessarily to ..... not done by the dissolved firm.'22. in narayanappa v. bhaskara krishnappa, : [1966]3scr400 the supreme court, while dealing with the provisions of the partnership act held:'the provisions of sections 14, 15, 29, 32, 37, 38 and 48 make it clear that whatever may be the character of the property ..... appellant/ plaintiff is not pressing the relief for accounting. therefore, for the purpose of mere division of the residual properties after dissolution of the partnership firm, the suit need not be filed within three years from the date of dissolution of the firm. the defendant has not acquired title ..... has not perfected his title to the plaint schedule properties by adverse possesion.18. the learned counsel for the appellant submits that when once the partnership firm is dissolved, the properties of the firm vest in the partners and, therefore, each partner will be entitled for his share in the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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