Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Page 6 of about 35,901 results (0.255 seconds)

May 05 1988 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Krishna Re-rolling Mills

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : (1988)70CTR(Raj)175; [1989]175ITR366(Raj); 1988(2)WLN128

..... with the remaining partners together with the heir and representative of the deceased partner. it was expressly held that (at p. 765) 'by virtue of section 42(c) of the indian partnership act, 1932, a firm was dissolved by the death of a partner but as the section provided, that was subject to the contract between the partners.' reference was also made in ..... is distinguishable forany reason.7. as already indicated, there was a contract to the contrary in the partnership deed as a result of which the partnership firm did not stand dissolved in accordance with the general principle contained in section 42(c) of the indian partnership act on the death of two of the six partners. this is also evident from the fact that the ..... together with the heir of the deceased partner being taken in as a partner. it is the terms of this partnership deed which governed the case at the time of death of the two partners. clause (c) of section 42 of the indian partnership act, 1932, which lays down the general principle of dissolution of a firm on the death of a partner is ..... , the firm shall not stand dissolved ; and so in view of section 42(c) of the indian partnership act, after the death of a partner, the firm automatically stands dissolved. this is the only basis on which the tribunal has come to the conclusion that the partnership firm stood dissolved on the death of the two partners. this finding is not based on any .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 01 1991 (HC)

M/S. Raja theatre, Coimbatore Vs. M/S. Selvam Financiers and Others

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1992Mad227; (1991)IMLJ346

..... second respondent in support of his contention is ex.b8. ex.b8 is the certified copy of form a maintained by the registrar of firms under s. 59 of the indian partnership act relating to the firm raja theatres. ex. x1 is the original of ex.b8. ex.b2 is an application dated 1-3-1989 presented by one kumar to the registrar ..... as early as on 31-12-1978. the agreement as ex. b5 and the certified copy of form 'a' maintained by the registrar of firms under s. 59 of the indian partnership act marked as ex. b.8 in this case will go to show that the first respondent was not having any interest in the ..... there was no consent of all other partners for his retirement. as a result a notice in writing expressing his intention to the partnership act (sic). admittedly such a notice as contemplated in s. 32(1)(c) of the partnership act was not given by the first respondent to the other partners of the firm. in such circumstances, the case of the second respondent ..... /s. raja theatres. ex.a1 shows that the partnership m/s. theatres is a partnership at will. in the case of a partnership at will, a partner can retire from the partnership by giving notice in writing to the other partners as contemplated in s. 31(1)(c) of the partnership act. s. 32(1) of the partnership act provides that a partner may retire with the consent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 17 2001 (HC)

V.V. Textiles Rep. by Its Proprietor S. Baskaran Vs. Mahavir Fabrics R ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2001)3MLJ295

..... ibrahim v. kakka mohammed ghouse sahib, ; and 3. n.a.munavar hussain sahib v. e.r.narayanan,. 12. section 69(2) of the indian partnership act runs as follows: 'effect of non-registration: (2) no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any court by ..... non-registration, which is a specific bar under section 69 of the indianpartnership act?9. mr. s.krishnasamy, learned counsel for the appellant, referred to section 69 of the indian partnership act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') and contended that the suit was not at all maintainable as the requirement under ..... section 69(2) of the act was mandatory. he also relied on the followingjudgments:1. balasore textile distributors association v. indian union, air 1960 ori 1191; ..... the registration of a firm is a condition precedent for the launching of a suit by the firm as per section 69(2) of the partnership act. subsequentregistration cannot cure the defect. (2) the objection regarding non-registration has to be specifically pleaded. once pleaded it is incumbent on the ..... of the firm is a condition precedent to its right to institute a suit of the nature mentioned in section 69(2) the partnership act and that the registration after the inslitution of the suit cannot cure the defect of non-registration before the date of the suit. it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 1975 (HC)

A.D. Jayaveerapandia Nadar and Co. and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1975]101ITR390(Mad)

..... company' but a 'firm', it would be relevant to note the definition of 'firm' under the act. section 2(23) of the act adopts the definition of 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' as defined in the indian partnership act, 1932. section 4 of the partnership act, 1932, is as follows ;' 'partnership' is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by ..... these circumstances, to import the definition of the word 'person' occurring in section 3(42) of the general clauses act, 1897, into section 4 of the indian partnership act will, according to lawyers, english or indian, be totally repugnant to the subject of partnership law as they know and understand to be. it is in this view of the matter that it has been ..... all or any of them acting for all. persons who have entered into partnership with one another are ..... consistently held in this country that a firm as such is not entitled to enter into partnership with another firm or individuals .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 1979 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Abdul Cader Motor Service

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1980)14CTR(Mad)231; [1980]122ITR812(Mad)

..... , though not in the manner contemplated by section 32 of the indian partnership act. even if there is no dissolution, in the case of retirement also the gujarat high court has taken the view, following the decision of the supreme court in cit v ..... actually filed a suit for dissolution. he did not give any notice for retirement. there was no agreement for his retirement. none of the clauses of section 32 of the indian partnership act would apply here. it would thus be a curious case of there being neither dissolution nor retirement. 13. there was actually retirement of the partner, chellappa chettiar, under the decree ..... the case of dissolution, there should have been a preliminary decree and then a final decree as contemplated by the code of civil procedure read with section 44 of the indian partnership act. there could be no partial dissolution ; either the firm is dissolved or it is not. we shall thus proceed on the basis that there was no dissolution. 12. this cannot ..... be strictly called a case of retirement of a partner. under section 32 of the indian partnership act, a partner may retire with the consent of all the other partners or in accordance with an express agreement by the partners, or where the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 03 1996 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kamala Devi

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1997]227ITR701(Mad)

..... . v. cit : [1979]120itr49(sc) , the supreme court, while considering the provisions of sections 2(47), 34(3)(b) and 155(5) of the income-tax act, held as under (headnote) : 'a partnership firm under the indian partnership act, 1932, is not a distinct legal entity apart from the partners constituting it and equally in law the firm as such has no separate rights of ..... partnership firm, the partners cannot say that they are the owners of the properties held by the firm. even according to the income-tax ..... court, while considering the provisions of sections 45, 54(i) and 114 of the income-tax act, 1961, section 2 of the finance (no. 2) act, 1967, and section. 14 of the indian partnership act, 1932, held (headnote) : 'that for purposes of assessment to tax, the income-tax act treats a registered firm as an entity distinct from the partners. under the specific provisions of the ..... department submitted that there was no dissolution in the present case. one of the assets of the partnership firm was withdrawn by the partners and later on it was sold by them jointly. according to learned standing counsel, as per the provisions of section 14 of the indian partnership act, the partnership firm is the owner of the property. therefore, during the subsistence of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 1996 (HC)

income-tax Officer Vs. Dinesh K. Shah and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1997]223ITR68(Mad)

..... officer' only with reference to a local authority or a company or any other public body or any association of persons or any body of individuals. the act adopts the definition of the terms 'firm', 'partner', and 'partnership' as contained in the indian partnership act, 1932. each partner is an agent of the others. consequently, all the partners are jointly and severally liable for the ..... to share the profits as well as the losses of the business ; and (ii) the business must be carried on by all or any of them acting for all, within the meaning of the definition of 'partnership' under section 4 of the indian partnership act. the principle of agency has been held to be implicit in the second requirement.19. section 2(31) of the ..... april, 1971, or on or after that date) as may be specified in the declaration.' 17. section 2(23) of the act defines 'firm'. it runs thus : '2. (23) 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the indian partnership act, 1932 (9 of 1932) ; but the expression 'partner' shall also include any person who, being a minor, has been admitted ..... day-to-day business of the company or firm or other association.32. sections 4 and 18 of the indian partnership act, 1932, should also be beneficially noticed in this context. section 4 reads as follows : ' 4. definition of 'partnership', 'partner', 'firm' and 'firm name'.--'partnership' is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 22 2008 (HC)

Smt. Usha Gopirathnam W/O Shri Gopirathnam, Vs. Shri P.S. Ranganathan, ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2008(3)AIRKarR291; AIR2008NOC2137; 2008AIHC2457(Kar); 2008(5)KLJ220

..... cannot be construed as notice to all the partners and therefore it is not a notice at all having regard to the provisions of section 32 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (for short the 'partnership act). in order to reinforce his submission that gopirathnam did not retire from the firm despite the existence of ex. d-2, the learned senior counsel took; ..... same chapter under the heading 'collection of other definitions' and under that, the definition given in the indian partnership act, 1932 (based on the partnership act 1890) is also included and the definitions as given by frederick pollock and watson are as under:pollock: partnership is the relation which subsists between parsons who have agreed to sham the profits of a business carried on ..... their status does not arise. the appellants have failed to plead, the existence of a contract and therefore having regard to the nature of partnership and the provisions of the partnership act, particularly section 69 of the partnership act, the suit itself is not maintainable, in order to drive home the point that existence of a contract is essential, learned senior counsel referred ..... having continued as a partner during the 24 years period,, between the date of letter of retirement written by the gopirathnam and his death. as the essential requirements of partnership act had not been fulfilled the trial court has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. no interference is therefore necessary in this appeal and he prayed for the dismissal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1960 (HC)

Kajaria Traders (India) Ltd. Vs. Foreign Import and Export Association

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1961Bom65; (1960)62BOMLR753

..... come up before me under clause 36 of the letters patent for the determination of the questions following:--'whether in view of the provisions contained in section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the present petition is maintainable and what provisions should be made for the costs of the parties to the petition.'there has been a difference of opinion between mr ..... ' used in section 69(3) cannot be construed so as to embrace an application made under section 8 of the indian arbitration act, 1940.17a. in the result, the question whether in view of the provisions contained in section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the present petition is maintainable, is answered in' the affirmative.18. as regards costs, there is no reason to ..... appointed by consent of all the parties. in my view, the right to make an application under section 8 of the arbitration act is not a right arising from a contract within the meaning of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932.6. the next point to be considered is whether an application under section 8 is covered by the words 'other proceeding ..... 8 provided there was no other impediment in doing so. mr. justice mudholkar considered that section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, constituted such an impediment. mr. justice naik was of the contrary opinion. sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, provide as follows:--'69(1). no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 04 1983 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. E.H. Kathawala and Co.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1984)38CTR(Bom)194; [1985]151ITR348(Bom); [1984]16TAXMAN138(Bom)

..... and the successor firm.10. in our opinion, the legal position will have to be ascertained with reference to the provisions of the indian partnership act. section 42 of the indian partnership act provides that a firm is dissolved by the death of a partner, but this is made subject to a contract to the contrary ..... constitution of a firm. in our opinion, however, the correct legal position will have to be ascertained with reference to the provisions of the indian partnership act and the decision given must rest on the particular facts of each case. these decisions then may not have any general application and need not, ..... between the partners. we have already mentioned that we find no express provision, i.e., a contract to the contrary, in the partnership deed dated october ..... conduct of the surviving partners and the heirs of the deceased partner, after his death, may reflect the original intention of the founders of the partnership. the taking up as a partner of a son of the deceased partner in his stead and the continuation of the firm without dissolution is ..... at kolhapur in the name and style of e. h. kathawala & co. it carries on business in jaggery and acts as commission agents. it was first constituted under a deed of partnership executed in october, 1949. from time to time, the constitution of the firm has undergone various changes. we are .....

Tag this Judgment!


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