Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Page 8 of about 35,901 results (0.187 seconds)

Mar 30 1984 (HC)

M.M. Pulimood Vs. Registrar of Firms

Court : Kerala

Reported in : [1987]61CompCas209(Ker)

..... file the statement on his satisfaction that the provisions of sections 58 have been duly complied with. a company being a ' person ' within the meaning of sections 4 of the indian partnership act, registration cannot be declined for the reason of its being a partner of the firm. i, therefore, quash exhibit p-8 and the endorsement by the respondent on exhibit p ..... which this company can carry on, and to amalgamatewith any other company or companies in such manner as this company shall think fit.'3. as per sections 58 of the indian partnership act 'the registration of a firm may be effected at any time by sending by post or delivering to the registrar of the area in which any place of business of ..... re-presentation of the application along with exhibit p-10. the application is still pending before the respondent and the firm is not yet registered under sections 59 of the indian partnership act. this original petition is to quash exhibit p-8 memo and the endorsement on exhibit p-9 as per which the respondent has taken the view that a company cannot ..... incorporated or not', unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context to exclude a company registered under the indian companies act from becoming a partner of the firm. it is a ' person ' within the meaning of sections 4 of the indian partnership act and can very well be a partner of a firm. exhibit p-2 is the memorandum of association of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 26 1979 (HC)

C.V. Mulk Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax

Court : Kerala

Reported in : [1979]120ITR670(Ker)

..... supported not only by the relative provisions of the income-tax act, but is in accord with the basic principles of the partnership law.'3. in the light of this principle the full bench examined the principles of partnership set out in lindley on partnership. the legal position of a firm under the indian partnership act flows from the concept of a firm not being a person ..... in the eye of the law. it was pointed out that a partner in a partnership could not be an employee of the partnership and that this has been recognised in ..... 3 of the partnership act and the statement of principle in lindley on partnership, and again, on examination of the provisions of the indian law of partnership. in the light of the above, the conclusion was stated thus (p. 299) :' the necessary inference from the premise that ..... of the business must be regarded as portion of the profits being made over as a reward for the human capital brought in. section 13 of the partnership act brings into focus this basis of partnership business.'5. at pages 297 & 298 the court examined the position that a firm is not a person in law. this was stressed with reference to section .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 1980 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Tamil Nadu-v Vs. S. Sivaprakasa Mudaliar

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1983]144ITR285(Mad); (1983)IIMLJ419

..... surplus assets to the same extent to which his transfer would have been entitled if there has been no assignment-vide s. 29 of the indian partnership act 1932. where a partner assigned his share to another partner, and not to a stranger the only result of it would be a reduction in ..... inter vivos as any other species of property; it is also subject to devolution on succession by death of the partner. section 37 of the partnership act is an indication that the interest of a partner would devolve on his harries or other legal personal representatives. for, this section provides that the ..... the assignment becomes complete as between the assignor and the assignee, m irrespective of the consequences in terms of the partnership status. 10. section 29 of the partnership act apparently convert an assignment of a partnership interest inter vivos. order 21, r. 49 of the cpc provides for an involuntary transfer of the interest of ..... be rendered, or enable any of the other partners to buy off the judgment-debtor's interest in the partnership. 10. the provisions of s. 29 of the partnership act and of o. 21, r. 49, clearly show that a partner's interest as such, is not only a species of ..... family property does not amount to 'transfer' within the meaning of the relevant provision in the tamil nadu agricultural income-tax act. this court further held that when once the partnership interest becomes joint family property by this process, the income flowing therefrom has to be taken as the income of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 13 1983 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. R. Sithan Chetty Sons

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1984]145ITR306(Mad)

..... in that case it has been held that s. 187 applies only where a firm is reconstituted in accordance with ss. 31 and 32 of the indian partnership act, but where the firm is dissolved either by agreement of the partners or by operation of law and another firm takes over the business, that will ..... continue as one and single throughout the period, and that, therefore, in cases where the firm ceases to exist as contemplated by s. 42 of the partnership act, the relationship of the partners inter se comes to an end and thereafter the firm can not longer be said to continue as before. the court ..... according to clause 5 of the said deed. it was provided that in all matters not provided in the deed the provision of the india partnership act would apply. subsequently rangaswamy chettiar and venkatarama chettiar are to have represented their respective branches as partners in the said firm. however, on november 30 ..... (n) estate tea factory v. addl. cit : [1978]112itr715(mad) . in that case four of the five partners of the firm retired from the partnership on june 30, 1970, after executing a release deed under the which the remaining partner took over the right and liabilities of the firm. on the same day ..... has sought and obtained this reference on the question set out above. 4. the following facts are not in dispute in this case. by a deed of partnership dated april 1, 1972, a firm was constituted under the name of m/s. r. sithan chetty sons comprising of two partners, s. rangaswamy chettiar and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 03 1979 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Admiralty Flats Motel

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1982]133ITR895(Mad)

..... of individuals do, by agreement, carry on business as a firm.16. under section 2(23) of the i.t. act, the expressions ' firm ', ' partner ' and 'partnership' have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the indian partnership act. section 4 of the 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 acting for all. while as a result of section 2(23) of the i.t. act, the concept of the partnership act has been imported into the i.t ..... assessable under the head ' property ' or under the head 'business' was not relevant, but that the running of a lodging house was certainly a business activity so far as the partnership act was concerned.15. mr. jayaraman, learned counsel for the revenue, submitted that in view of the finding of the tribunal that the income from the buildings was assessable under the ..... . act, there is no provision in the partnership act which imports into it the concept of income-tax law. therefore, because of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 1998 (HC)

Y. Baliah Chetty Sons and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [2000]244ITR870(Mad)

..... the tribunal has not applied proper tests to determine whether there was a dissolution of the firm. we hold that under section 40 of the indian partnership act the firm was dissolved on the execution of the deed of dissolution and once the dissolution of the firm takes place, the relationship inter se ..... of the partners who went out of the firm would be governed by the deed of dissolution as well as by the provisions of the indian partnership act. the third circumstance that is relied upon by the tribunal is that the accounts of the partners were not settled is a ground to hold ..... partners as well as erstwhile partners would be settled and they would be governed and determined by the deed of dissolution. under section 40 of the indian partnership act, the firm may be dissolved with the consent of all the partners or in accordance with the contract between the partners. in this case, the ..... admittedly, the deed of dissolution was executed on both the occasions and the dissolution took place within themeaning of the indian partnership act, 1932. when there is a dissolution deed, and it was acted upon, it is not open to the partners to go behind or against the terms of the dissolution deed and ..... was executed and on that basis the new firm carried on the business, the rights and liabilities of the partners would be governed by the new partnership deed. the erstwhile partners rights, who went out of the firm would be governed by the deed of dissolution of the firm and, therefore, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 2012 (HC)

P. Rathinasabapathy Vs. P. Annamalai and ors.

Court : Chennai

..... of the first defendant (deceased). 11. the learned counsel for the appellant projects a legal plea that as a partner of the partnership firm, the second defendant is also liable for the claim, if any against the firm, under the indian partnership act. 12. lastly, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgments and decrees of the trial ..... any amount has been given by the plaintiff to the second defendant, the first defendant is not liable for the same. 26. it is to be noted that under the indian partnership act, one partner is an agent of the other partner and he or she has express or implied authority to do certain ..... suit. 20. a firm may not be a legal entity like that of a corporation or company (incorporated under the companies act, 1956), but it is still an existing concern where business is transacted by a number of individuals in partnership. 21. the payment to the firm of a private debt due to one partner is not a discharge, unless it is ..... acts for and on behalf of the firm, representing the other partners. after all a partnership is nothing but a compendium of individuals who have entered into an agreement to do one or other kind of business transaction. 27. as far as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 01 2001 (HC)

Ram Nandan Prasad Sinha Vs. K.M. Consultants

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR2002Bom90; 2002(2)BomCR585; (2002)1BOMLR153; 2002(1)MhLj600

..... that the effect of non-registration is fatal to the validity of the reference and the award. the contention is based on section 69 of the indian partnership act as amended by the state of maharashtra. the provisions of section 69 are set out below :--'69. effect of non-registration. -- (1) no ..... was challenged before the learned single judge was that the respondent was not a registered firm and, in any event, was not registered under the indian partnership act at the material time and, therefore, could not make any claim in the arbitration proceedings and, therefore, the reference as well as the award ..... as a suit would not make any difference for the obvious reason that though sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 69 of the partnership act refer to a suit, sub-section (3) thereof makes those sub-sections applicable even to other proceedings which would include an application registered and numbered ..... in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered under the partnership act. mr. thakkar relied upon the decisions of the supreme court in jagdish chandra gupta v. kajaria traders (india) ltd., : [1964]8scr50 , and delhi ..... claim.' 3. mr. thakkar contends that the reference to the arbitration of the bombay stock exchange constitute 'other proceeding' under section 69(3) of the partnership act. according to him, in view of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 69, no suit or proceeding shall be instituted in any .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 24 2008 (HC)

Yessay Foodoils (Represented by Its Partners: Mohammed Iqbal S/O Late ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2008(5)KCCR3232; AIR2009Kant103; ILR2009KAR724; 2009(9)KarLJ156; 2009(3)AIRKarR352;

..... plaintiffs in the trial court.2. the suit was instituted by the plaintiffs, who are the partners of an unregistered partnership firm, seeking the relief of possession and ..... v. jagannathan, j.1. whether the suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm for possession and mesne profits can be said to be not maintainable in view of the bar under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 is the question that calls for an answer in this second appeal filed by the ..... will have to be mainly on the maintainability of the suit in view of the bar contained under section 69(2) of the partnership act.12. section 69(2) of the partnership act, 1932 reads as under:(2) no suits to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any court by ..... air2000sc2676 , the learned counsel for the appellants argued that it is clear from the aforesaid decisions of the apex court that section 69(2) of the partnership act cannot be a bar for the enforcement of a statutory right or a common law right by an unregistered firm and the right to evict a tenant upon ..... a suit wherein the plaintiff firm is not enforcing contractual right vis-a-vis the defendant, even in terms of section 69(2) of the partnership act, 1932.7. learned counsel shri kukkaje ramakrishna bhat for the appellants, contended that the lower appellate court was totally in error in not noticing the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 1957 (HC)

Meka Venkatappaiah Vs. Additional Income Tax Officer

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : [1957]32ITR274(AP)

..... . '3. the aforesaid fasciculus of sections clearly indicates that, for the purpose of the income-tax act, an unregistered firm is a distinct assessable unit or assessable entity though, for the purpose of the indian partnership act, it is not a legal entity but only consists of individual partners for the time being. a ..... clear distinction is maintained between a firm and its partners. section 3 charges the income of every firm and the partners of the firm in accordance with or subject to the provisions of the act. ..... the members composing it for income-tax purposes and is recognised as a separate assessable unit under section 3 of the income-tax act. though according to the partnership act a partnership firm is not a single legal person, still for purposes of income-tax the firm is regarded as having a separate status ..... to income-tax' in the present case in so narrow a sense. it cannot be denied that when the income of a partnership is assessed to tax under the act what is really assessed is nothing less than the income of the individual partners and we think that to say that a person ..... distinct unit for purposes of assessment. sections 26, 48, and 55 of the act fully bear out this position. these provisions of the act go to show that the technical view of the nature of a partnership, under english law or indian law, cannot be taken in applying the law of income-tax. '8. the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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