Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Page 7 of about 35,901 results (0.092 seconds)

Jan 19 1970 (HC)

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Salankayala Pulleswara Rao

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : [1972]85ITR109(AP)

..... the facts of the present case. this is a case distinguishable on facts as the state is now seeking a priority over a decree for the distribution of the partnership assets. the indian partnership act has a specified scheme of distribution of assets on dissolution. the relevant sections are sections 46, 48 and 49 which may be extracted for easy reference :section 46 : 'on ..... and sub-section (2) of section 232.'12. obviously, the decision puts the matter in issue beyond all reasonable doubt that the provisions of the partnership act under which the decrees have been passed relating to the partnership assets have to be looked to and would form a complete code for working out priorities, if any.13. in this context i have also ..... disturbed by reading into it a priority which is not expressly provided thereunder. it is manifest that there is nothing in the partnership act which provides for a priority of debts due under the income-tax act and the sales tax act. i am fortified in my view by the statement of the law by the federal court in governor-general in council v ..... federal court said at page 19 of the judgment :'we have no hesitation in coming to a conclusion and holding that the crown is bound by the provisions of the indian companies act, 1913, and is bound, in regard to the provisions relating to the liquidation of companies, 'to a statutory scheme of administration wherein the prerogative right of the crown to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 2008 (HC)

Padmavathi Finance Corporation Vs. S.V. Metal Unit and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2009(6)ALT544

..... said suit debt.11. on the strength of these pleadings, the following issues had been settled by the trial court:1. whether the plaintiff is a firm registered under the indian partnership act?2. whether the suit pronote dt.13.09.83 is true and valid?3. whether the modification of the authority of the defendants 2 and 5 by a modification deed ..... his name.19. the learned counsel representing the parties made further elaborate submissions on the strength of the sections 19, 20 and 22 of the indian partnership act as well.20. section 19 of the act, deals with implied power of partner as agent of the firm.sub-section (1) of section 19, reads as under:subject to the provisions of section 22, the ..... on this aspect. while further elaborating the submissions, the learned counsel also had taken this court through the sections 19, 20 and 22 of the indian partnership act and sections 26 and 27 of the negotiable instruments act as well and would maintain that in the light of the evidence available on record, the trial court recorded appropriate findings granting decree against those, who ..... suit against the firm and the other partners cannot be sustained. the learned counsel also pointed out to sections 19, 20 and 22 of the indian partnership act and sections 26 and 27 of the negotiable instruments act and would maintain that the trial court had not appreciated these provisions properly. the learned counsel also would maintain that a cursory glance of the contents .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 2001 (HC)

P. Balakrishna Rao Licencee of Harsha Wines Vs. Prohibition and Excise ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2001(4)ALD576

..... the contention of the petitioner is that having regard to the fact that he was partner of two firms constituted and registered in terms of indian partnership act, 1932, the aforementioned amendment is not applicable in this case.4. rule 29 (2) of the 1970 rules as amended by g. ..... rule is not applicable in case of a partnership firm having regard to the fact that the petitioner being holder of joint licence and the licensees having been carrying on the business in partnership. 6. partnership in terms of section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932 signifies the relation between the partners ..... who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. to constitute a partnership there must be (i) a ..... business; (ii) an agreement to share profits of the business; and (iii) the business must be carried on by all or any of the partners acting ..... person. it can neither sue and nor can be sued. relationship of partners in terms of section 5 of the partnership act arises from a contract and no status is created thereby. the mutual rights and obligations of the partners arise out of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 2006 (HC)

Om Prakash Vs. Gordhan and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : 2006(2)MPLJ497

..... enacting it, the previous law on the subject and the mischief which the statute intended to cure should be looked into. under the law as it stood prior to the indian partnership act, an active partner who had retired from a firm could continue to remain liable for the debts contracted subsequently by the continuing firm unless those who had previous dealings with ..... is an admitted position that no public notice was issued with regard to retirement of the appellant from the firm.section 45 of the indian partnership act, 1932 reads as under with regard to liability of partners:45. liability for acts of partner done after dissolution.- (1) notwithstanding the dissolution of a firm, the partners continue to be liable as such a third ..... the firm if done before retirement.the division bench further held as under after analyzing the provisions of sections 32(5) and 45 of the partnership act and the earlier provision of the indian contract act:- section 32(3) therefore enacts a liability on the well known principle of holding out. this principle is also recognized in the case of dissolution, under section ..... 45 of the partnership act. the partnership act is an amending enactment and is by no means a complete one. it repealed ch. xi of the indian contract act which contained provisions relating to the law of partnership. it is well recognized rule of construction that for a due appraisement of the content of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 07 2002 (HC)

Rajanikanta Padhi Vs. B. Kameswar Subudhi (Dead) After Him His L.Rs. a ...

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 2002(I)OLR646

..... same, a ready reference to the relevant provision i. e., sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (in short 'the act 1932') is beneficial and that reads as hereunder:'(2) no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any ..... in that respect the relevant plea which he raised in the court below is as follows :'the suit is also hit under the provisions of the indian partnership act, the right to enforce have not arisen from a contract on behalf of the firm which is unregistered.'to understand the plea and to decide the ..... not maintainable by the plaintiff without including the co-owner, i.e. his brother and the suit is hit by section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932.8. learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent repelled the aforesaid contention and defended correctness of the impugned judgment.9. before discussing the aforesaid points raised ..... non-compliance of section 18-b(2) and rule 11 (iii) ?(3) is the suit not hit under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act ?(4) is the suit maintainable in law ?(5) is the suit barred by limitation ?(6) to what reliefs ?5. in the court ..... defendant-appellant contends that in the written statement, a plea of non-compliance of the provisions of the money lenders act and the suit being bad on account of section 69 of the partnership act had been raised and if these defences were ultimately established, notwithstanding the admissions of the power of attorney holder, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 2004 (SC)

Firm Ashok Traders and anr. Etc. Vs. Gurumukh Das Saluja and ors. Etc.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2004SC1433; 2004(1)ARBLR141(SC); 2004(2)AWC949(SC); (2004)2CompLJ419(SC); 2004(2)CTC208; JT2004(2)SC352; 2004(3)MhLj592; 2004MPLJ266(SC); (2004)137PLR526; 2004(1)SCALE29

..... so on. ajay arora (of group 'a') filed a civil suit which was held to be not-maintainable in view of section 69(3) of the indian partnership act, 1932; the name of ajay arora having not been shown in the register of firms as a partner of the firm. according to group 'a', a ..... orders as it has for the purpose of, and in relation to, any proceedings before it.indian partnership act, 193269. effect of non-registration. - (1) no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this act shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of any person suing as a ..... ) the constitution bench approved of a liberal and full meaning being assigned to the phrase 'other proceedings' in sub-section (3) of section 69 of the partnership act untramelled by the preceding words 'a claim of set-off. the court refused to countenance the plea for interpreting the words 'other proceedings' ejusdem generis with the ..... the contract for the year 2003-04 is concerned was vehemently denied. it was reiterated that the application was hit by section 69(3) of the partnership act and hence was liable to be dismissed. the high court has allowed the appeal. it has held that the applicability of section 69(3) is not ..... on very many grounds and mainly by submitting that the application was not maintainable in view of the bar enacted by section 69(3) of the partnership act as the name of the applicant does not figure in the register of firms as partner of the firm. the plea has prevailed with the learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 09 2003 (SC)

Syndicate Bank Vs. R.S.R. Engineering Works and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2003(4)ALD62(SC); 2003(51)BLJR1677; [2003(3)JCR162(SC)]; JT2003(4)SC578; (2003)134PLR570; 2003(4)SCALE648; (2003)6SCC265

..... was given to the plaintiff, but the appellant bank did not raise any objection and, therefore, it was urged that under section 32(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932, respondent nos. 2 and 3 are not liable for any payment under suit. the learned counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, ..... & 4 is not binding on the appellant bank. the contention of the appellant is that in view of sub-section 3 of section 32 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 cannot escape the liability as regard the suit claims madeby the appellant.5. at the time when the ..... firm as envisaged under section 32(3) of the indian partnership act. respondent nos. 2 and 3 have contended that the appellant was aware of the dissolution of the partnership but that by itself will not absolve the liability of the retiring partners. section 32 of the indian partnership act, 1932, reads as follow:-'32 retirement of a ..... partner. (1) a partner may retire:- (a) with the consent off all the other partners. (b) in accordance with the express agreement by the partners, or (c) where the partnership is at will, by giving notice ..... 2 and 3. it is also pertinent to note that there was no public notice under sub-section (3) of section 32 of the ndian partnership act by respondent nos. 2 and 3. even if there was a public notice, it may not alter the position as the alleged liabilities of respondent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 30 2005 (SC)

Ashutosh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2005SC3434; 2005(4)AWC3869N(SC); IV(2005)BC13(SC); 2006(1)BomCR760; 2005(4)CTC408; [2006(2)JCR155(SC)]; JT2005(8)SC58; 2005(4)KLT264(SC); (2005)7SCC308

..... failed to appear;provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affected the provisions of section 30 of the indian partnership act 1932 (9 of 1932).(2) where the decree-holder claims to be entitled to cause the decree to be executed against any person other ..... the present context which are reproduced hereunder:'section 24- effect of notice to the acting partner - notice to the partner who habitually acts in the business of the firm of any matter relating to the ..... other. the partner is always liable for partnership debt unless there is implied or express restriction. in the instant case, notice was duly served on smt. dhanwanti devi and her husband at house no. 80b , block sri ganganagar. sections 24 & 25 of the indian partnership act, 1932 can be usefully referred to in ..... to the second question. in paragraph 18, r.c. lahoti, j. observed as under:'the high court has relied on section 25 of the partnership act, 1932 for the purpose of holding the partners as individuals liable to meet the tax liability of the firm. section 25 provides that every partner is ..... court. this court while allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the high court observed as follows:'section 25 of the partnership act does not make a distinction between a continuing partner and an erstwhile partner. its principle is clear and specific, viz., that every partner is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 29 1984 (HC)

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-iii Vs. Bal Kishan Dass H ...

Court : Delhi

Reported in : [1984]149ITR202(Delhi)

..... in the constitution, and that separate assessments had to be made for the two periods. the court referred to s. 42(c) of the indian partnership act, 1932, and held that in view of this position under the partnership law, the ito was not entitled to proceed on the basis as if the same firm continued to be in existence throughout the accounting year ..... on law did arise for consideration of the high court. 4. a host of authorities were cited before us to canvass the proposition as to whether the provisions of the partnership act were applicable and whether it was a case of dissolution of the firm or a mere change in the constitution of the firm. the facts in the present case leave ..... with some strangers take over the assets and liabilities of the old firm and carry on the business. the supreme court further observed (p. 627) : 'under s. 40 of the partnership act, 1932, a firm can be dissolved with the consent of all the partners or in accordance with the contract between the partners; under s. 43 a ..... , and the partners were devi sahai, jagdish prasad and bal kishan dass. jagdish prasad was acting for and on behalf of radhey sham trust. this partnership was re-constituted by the deed of partnership dated june 26, 1963, when ram gopal taken in as the 4th partner. the partnership was at will and could be determined by mutual consent of all the parties. it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 15 2004 (HC)

Vanita Gambhir and ors. Vs. District Judge and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2005(1)ARBLR166(Delhi)

..... framed by the learned additional district judge on 8.7.2002 in these applications:-'whether the petition is maintainable in view of bar created by section 69(1) of the indian partnership act.'7. the impugned order records that no arguments were advanced by the petitioners to justify the maintainability of their applications. the case of the respondents on the other hand was ..... b.a. khan, j.1. petitioners' applications under sections 11 and 9 of the arbitration & conciliation act, 1996 have been dismissed for being barred by section 69 of the indian partnership act by impugned order dated 2.9.2002 passed in suit no. 65/2002 giving rise to this petition.2. petitioners had filed these applications before learned additional district judge for ..... appointment of arbitrator under section 11 and for appointment of receiver under section 9 of the act as a temporary interim measure. their case ..... permitted least judicial intervention in matters involving settlement of disputes which fall within the domain of arbitrator and had also misappreciated and misapplied the provisions of section 69 of the partnership act. he had also wrong reliance on a judgment of a guwahati high court in mohd.monirul hasan (supra) in which a partner of an unregistered firm had filed a .....

Tag this Judgment!

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