Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Court: allahabad Page 1 of about 719 results (0.030 seconds)

Apr 25 1935 (PC)

(Firm) Ram Prasad-thakur Prasad Vs. (Firm) Kamta Prasad-sita Prasad

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1935All898; 157Ind.Cas.154

..... kendall, j.1. this application has raised a technical question in connection with the indian partnership act of 1932. the plaintiff, purporting to be a firm, entered a plaint on 27th. october 1933, which was admitted and registered on 28th november. on 23rd ..... in the firm.7. it cannot be said that the suit was instituted only when the plaint was amended. it was undoubtedly instituted before the provisions of the act had been complied with. i am therefore of opinion that the decision of the trial court is correct, though it may be inaccurate in stating that the ..... statement in his register. further, it is provided in section 69 as follows: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 partner in a firm against the firm...unless the firm is registered ..... be made an application to amend, the plaint after having obtained a certificate to the effect that the firm had been registered in accordance with section 59 of the act. the plaint was, amended accordingly, after which the written statement was filed in which the objection was raised that the suit, as framed, was barred by section ..... 69 of the act. the trial court appears to have rejected the plaint, giving as a reason that it was admitted by the plaintiff that the firm was not registered when the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 1939 (PC)

Chandrika Prasad Ram Swarup Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. and C ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : [1939]7ITR269(All)

..... taken into consideration in the assessment year.it is agreed on all hands that the present case is governed not by the provisions of the indian partnership act of 1932 but by the indian contract act and reference to the partnership act in question no. (1) is, therefore, erroneous.the facts that led to the reference are as follows :-the assessee firm carries on cloth business in ..... assumed to be the agent of the others for the purpose of carrying on the business. under the provisions of the indian income-tax act the terms firm, partner and partnership have the same meaning as under the indian contract act (or now under the indian partnership act). when the income-tax authorities are permitted to tax the income of a firm they are permitted to tax the ..... or with individuals as a legal entity or juristic person, it is not correct to say that a firm in the sense in which that terms is used in the indian contract act and indian partnership act cannot enter into another partnership.in the case with which we are dealing the assessee firm i.e., the individuals partners in that firm, entered into a larger ..... losses of their firm, that term being understood in the sense in which it is used in the indian contract act, the indian partnership act and consequently the indian income-tax act. the assessee firm were therefore entitled to set off the losses incurred by them in the larger partnership against the profits accruing to them from other business which they conducted.i am also inclined to agree .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 1942 (PC)

Mohanlal Vs. Shyamlal.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : [1942]10ITR219(All)

..... expression 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' we have to look not to the indian parnership act but to the indian contract act, it is only by the amending act of 1939 that it has been made clear that the terms 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' will have the same meanings respectively as in the indian partnership act of 1932.section 239 of the indian contract act was as follows :-' partnership is the relation which subsists ..... the indian income-tax act were not latered, and it has again been conceded before us that for the ..... section 26-a can succeed. the terms 'firm' and 'partnership' as not defined in the income-tax act, but in section 2 (6a) it is said 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' have have the same meanings respectively as in the indian contract act, 1872. although chapter xi of the indian contract act of 1872 was repealed by the indian partnership act of 1932, but the words in section 2 (6a0 of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 27 1949 (PC)

Hardutt Ray Gajadhar Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : [1950]18ITR106(All)

..... is incapable of entering into a contract, the contract on his behalf is void subject to such benefits that he may be entitled to get under section 30 of the indian partnership act.in the deed of partition dated the 15th september, 1932, it is mentioned that benarsi lal had in sambat 1982 adopted jagdish prasad and in 1983 sundar mal died and ..... , in the state of the evidence, to infer that, after the death of krishna, the appellant, though a minor, was admitted to the benefits of the partnership in terms of section 247 of the indian contract act. ramesam, j., state : we must therefore infer, in the absence of any member of the family giving us information on the point, that the mother agreed ..... admitted as a partner of the firm or was he admitted to the benefits of partnership ?(2) if krishna murari was admitted as a partner, could such a deed of partnership be registered under section 26a of the indian income-tax act, 1922, and the rules made under the act and(3) whether the application dated 23rd july, 1943, was in order regard being had ..... to rules 2-6b of the indian income-tax rules, 1922 ?'the facts briefly are that gajadhar ram .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 04 1950 (HC)

Lalli Ram Sunderlal Jhansi Vs. Re.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : [1951]19ITR372(All)

..... of shri thakur ji rashiq siromaniji situated in rambagh outside laxmi gate, jhansi. in section 4 of the indian partnership act, partnership has been defined as 'the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all ..... profits and would bear the losses in equal shares. an application was presented for registration of this deed of partnership under section 26a of the indian income-tax act during the assessment year 1945-46. the income-tax officer rejected this application and the appeals to the ..... the provisions in the contract about the liability to bear losses in equal shares is ordinarily much more consistent with the constitution of a partnership then with any other relationship between the contracting parties. there can, of course, be cases where, under special circumstances, the parties ..... bench, under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act for our opinion :-'whether, in the circumstances of the case and on a correct construction of the deed of partnership, dated the of april 3, 1945, a genuine partnership can be inferred ?'the assessee firm lalli ram ..... appellate assistant commissioner of income-tax and to the income-tax appellate tribunal failed. the assessee firm, therefore, applied for a reference to this court.the statement of the case forwarded by the tribunal incorporates a translation of the partnership .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 04 1950 (HC)

State Vs. Basdeo

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1951All44

..... become partners.'sir john beaumont delivering the judgment of the judicial committee in bhagwanji morarji goculdasv. alembic chemical works co. ltd. :'it is true that the indian partnership act goes further than the english partnership act, 1890, in recognising that a firm may possess a personality distinct from the persons constituting it; the law in india in that respect being more in accordance ..... in bhagwanji morarji v. alembic chemical works, ltd. . reliance is placed on these observations of their lordships of the judicial committee :'it is true that the indian partnership act goes further than' the english partnership act, 1890, in recognising that a firm may possess a personality distinct from the persons constituting it ; the law in india in that respect being more in ..... persons constituting it, and that the entity continues so long as the firm exists and continues to carry on its business. it is true that the indian partnership act goes further than the english partnership act, 1890, in recognising that a firm may possess a personality distinct from the persons constituting it; the law in india in that respect being more in ..... associated individuals, a fictitious being which in a manner represents them, but is not identical with them.'42. mr. pathak has referred to the various sections of the indian partnership act to show that a partner has been considered to be distinct from a firm. there cannot be any dispute about it. an individual partner is distinct from the firm, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 1950 (HC)

Bhola Nath Vs. Mt. Kaso Devi and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1951All601

..... & which on his bankruptcy passes to his trustee.' (lindley on partnership, edn. 10, pp. 415, 416).9. the law in india is not different. section 46, indian partnership act, defines the rights of patnrs. in the assets of a partnership on the dissolution of the partnership. it is as follows: --'on the dissolution of a firm ..... . the transferee's interest attaches to the proceeds which are in the hands of the receiver after payments of all the debts & liabilities of the partnership. the property in the hands of bhola nath, therefore, is not subject to the charge created by the decree in favour of mst. kaso devi ..... , but, speaking generally, is entitled, on a dissolution, to have the partnership property, whether land or not, sold, & the proceeds divided. of course, this is subject to a contract to the contrary.8. again at p. ..... has against the others are in many important respects different from, & less extensive than, those which one patnr. has against his co-patnrs.' (lindley on partnership, edn. 10, pp. 31-32).7. the important thing for our present purpose to note is that a patnr. has no right to partition in specie ..... between himself & co-owners, but not (except by virtue of the partition acts) to have it sold against their consent. a patur. has no right to partition in specie, but, speaking generally, is entitled, on a dissolution, to have the partnership property, whether land or not, sold, & the proceeds divided.(7) as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 21 1951 (HC)

Ram Kumar Ram Chandra Vs. the Dominion of India

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1952All695

..... residing at naya ganj kanpur, partner of the firm'. in para. 1 of the plaint the applicant had stated 'that the plaintiffs are a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act and lala ram kumar who has signed and verified the plaint, is registered partner of the firm.'2. on behalf of the defendant the allegation ..... .12. for the reasons stated above, it must be held that the suit was properly instituted and was not hit by section 69(2) of the partnership act and it was wrongly rejected on that ground by the trial court. in our opinion, therefore, this revision ought to be allowed, the decision of the ..... had n. r. nagpal any right to sue. it was further contended that the suit was not maintainable and liable to dismissal under the provisions of the partnership act. it was held in that suit that the firm was registered, but the name of n. r. nagpal was not shown in the register of firms ..... c.10. the present suit being by the firm and they firm having been registered the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 69 of the partnership act were fully complied with. in the circumstances, it was wholly unnecessary for the trial court to consider whether ram kumar was or was not a partner in ..... not proved that lala ram kumar was a partner in the firm. the suit was, accordingly, dismissed in view of the provisions of section 69(2), partnership act.3. the revision came up for hearing before a learned single judge of this court. he agreed with the opinion of the trial court that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 1952 (HC)

inderchand Hari Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and C.P. and Berar

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1952All706; [1952]22ITR108(All)

..... drew our attention to the difference between the definitions of the word 'business', as given in the indian partnership act and in the indian income-tax act. as we have already mentioned, 'business' under the indian partnership act is defined as including every trade, occupation and profession. under the indian income-tax act, 'business' has been defined to include any trade, commerce, or manufacture or any adventure or ..... its affairs. this continuous management of the affairs of the company was precisely the business of the assessee-firm which was one of the purposes of its formation under the indian partnership act. in this case, therefore, there was a continuity of the business of the firm.secondly, even a single venture can sometimes constitute the business of a firm or ..... or not.' in the case before us also, the assessee is not an individual but a juristic person which can be brought into existence only for purposes permissible under the indian partnership act. these purposes are therefore, a matter to be considered when deciding whether the firm is carrying on a business or not. rowlatt, j. in 'commrs. of inland revenue ..... other considerations.7. it appears to us that a very important and significant point that has to be considered is that the assessee is a firm constituted under the indian partnership act which limits the purposes for which a firm can be brought into existence. this is the consideration that weighed with the income-tax appellate tribunal for holding that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 1952 (HC)

Ram Kumar Ramniwas of Nanpara Vs. Re.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : [1952]22ITR474(All)

..... continue so long as the joint family continued to exist even though may come a time when a joint hindu family consists of only minors. the whole scheme of the indian partnership act goes against such conclusions.having, therefore, carefully considered this matter we are of the opinion that :-1. the hindu undivided family of ghanshyam das sunder lal, as a coparcenary unit ..... a contract each member of a joint hindu family would have the right to claim all the rights reserved to a partner under the indian partnership act and be liable for all the liabilities imposed on a partner under that act. if a joint hindu family as a unit distinct and separate from its members is deemed to be the partner then also this ..... act seeking registration of the instrument of partnership dated march 7, 1945, in which application the collective share of 3 1/5 annas of ..... das and sunder lal (two brothers constituting a hindu undivided family) in the deed of partnership dated march, 7, 1945, as partners of 3 1/5 as a coparcenary unit, without specification of their shares inter se, rendered the partnership inoperative and illegal within the meaning of section 4 of the indian partnership act.(2) whether the application under section 26a of the income-tax .....

Tag this Judgment!


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