Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Court: himachal pradesh Page 1 of about 40 results (0.018 seconds)

Aug 21 1953 (HC)

Girdhari Lal Vs. Spedding Dinga Singh and Co.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1954HP52

..... general attorney for prosecuting and defending suits not being one of the unusual things enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 19, indian partnership act, but, on the contrary, an act necessary for the conduct of the business of the firm, appointment of barkat rai by one of the partners of the firm, bawa ..... authorised' to sign the statement on behalf of ellvers, as required by the second paragraph of sub-section (1) of section 58 of the partnership act.one other statement elicited from eawa sundar singh in cross-examination which was caught hold of by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the ..... with the registrar, not that it was not shown to him.a perusal of the provisions relating to registration in chapter vii of the partnership act will show that the registrar has to file under section 59 the statement of particulars furnished under section 58, a statement of alterations in ..... and did not confer the special authority to sign the statement required by the second paragraph of sub-section (1) of section 58 of the partnership act, and, further, that it was open to him to show that the power-of-attorney was imperfect. it will be sufficient to show that ..... the principal with any other person. mclaren was therefore empowered to sign the statement in question under section 58, partnership act, for that was necessary to carry into effect the agreement of partnership between ellvers and bawa sundar singh. none of the objections raised on behalf of the appellant having any force, .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 09 1957 (HC)

Nokhu and ors. Vs. Gokal and anr.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1957HP59

..... . the court below has refused to go into the question as to whether the suit was barred under the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act on the following two grounds:(a) the plaint did not disclose that the suit had been filed on behalf of a firm. (b) no ..... taken in the written statement that the suit was barred under section 69 of the indian partnership act. 3. learned counsel for the petitioners argued--and in my opinion with great justification--that the mandatory provisions of section 69, partnership act, could not be defeated on either of the above two grounds. reliance was placed ..... by the defendants for amendment of their pleadings. he further submitted that the application under section 9, civil p. c., read with section (69 of the partnership act was made by the defendants at a very late stage. inter alia, mr. hira lal vaidya cited the following authorities :- (i) goverdhandoss v. m. ..... suit was on behalf of the unregistered firm and, consequently, was barred by the provisions of section 69 of the partnership act. a copy of that application was supplied to the other side (plaintiff).the latter, in his reply dated 9-8-1955, categorically denied that ..... made by the petitioners to the learned trial judge was one styled under section 9, c. p. c. read with section 69 of the partnership act, makes no material difference. we have to look to the substance of the application and not to its heading. that application clearly stated that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 24 1990 (HC)

Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Subhash Chand Sud and anr.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : [1991]191ITR64(HP)

..... co. v. cit : [1979]120itr49(sc) , the supreme court observed (at page 59) :'. . .it seems to us clear that 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 its ..... 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 it to be. it is in this view of the ..... matter that it has been consistently held in this country that a firm as such is not entitled to enter into partnership ..... own in the partnership assets and when one talks of the firm's property or firm's assets all that is ..... and (xxvi) of sub-section (1) provide for exemptions relating to post office national savings certificates and bank deposits.4. a partnership firm is not an assessee under the act. the interest of a partner in the firm is assessable wealth in the hands of the partner as provided for in section 4( .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 25 1996 (HC)

Chamunda Spun Pipe Industry Vs. Ishwar Dass and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : II(1996)ACC261

..... appeal before this court assailing the findings of the learned tribunal, inter alia, on the ground that the petition for compensation was maintainable and that the provisions of section 69, indian partnership act were not applicable.6. section 69 of the partnership act reads:effect of non-registration.-(1) no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this ..... or were damaged in any manner. an objection was further raised to the effect that since the appellant-petitioner was an unregistered partnership firm, the petition was not competent in view of the provisions contained in section 69 of the indian partnership act.4. the learned tribunal upon consideration of the material placed before it during the course of evidence by the parties, came ..... by virtue of section 69 (2) of the partnership act are set aside, and, it is held that the petitioner-appellant is entitled to compensation of rs. 3,100/- which the respondent nos. 1 to 3 are liable to pay ..... filed by the petitioner-appellant was, therefore, competent. the findings of the learned tribunal holding such a petition not to be competent and barred by section 69 (2) of the partnership act, are, therefore, wrong and liable to be set aside.18. as a result, the present appeal is allowed. the findings of the learned tribunal holding the petition to be bad .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 02 2001 (HC)

Badi Ram Vs. R.S. Company

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : AIR2002HP150

..... the sub judge 1st class, rampur bushahr, district shimla, was set-aside. the sub judge had dismissed the suit as not maintainable being hit by section 69 of the indian partnership act (hereinafter called 'the act').2. in the appeal before the district judge, the plaintiff had filed an application under order 41, rule 27, cpc for additional evidence to produce the original registration ..... been admitted on record.11. the case set up by the plaintiff in its application under order 41, rule 27, cpc was that while adducing its evidence the copy of partnership deed of the plaintiff firm was placed and proved on record, but the certificate of its registration could not be produced inadvertently and also for the reason that at the ..... to show that it is registered and the person through whom it is being sued is its partner, the suit is not maintainable as provided under section 69 of the act and the plaintiff firm is not entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant. in view of these findings, the trial court has not gone into the merits of ..... /- as prayed for? opp.2. whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? opd.3. whether this suit is not maintainable? opd.4. whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file this suit?opd.5. relief.6. the trial court had dismissed the suit holding that in the absence of registration certificate of the plaintiff firm on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 03 2007 (HC)

Ram Singh Vs. Daulat Ram and anr.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : AIR2008HP1

..... by one of the partners against the other partners is maintainable in view of the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 69 of the indian partnership act. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.6. the learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that ..... page 6 of the paper book. the district judge has allowed the appeal and held that in view of section 69 of the indian partnership act (for short, the act), the suit could not have been decreed for want of registration of firm. the learned counsel for the parties have agreed and addressed ..... behalf of plaintiff and invested this amount in the business of the saw-mill. according to the plaintiff his capital in the business of the partnership became rs. 6000/-. the defendants without the consent and permission of the plaintiff sold the saw-mill to one sham singh for a consideration of ..... section 69 of the act for filing the suit has been specifically taken. on the contrary, the perusal of the written statement would show that defendants have pleaded that two years after the starting of the partnership business, the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 withdrew from the said partnership business and share capital, ..... investment, loss and profit were paid back to them by defendant no. 1. this plea of the defendants is nothing but dissolution of the firm.7. the section 69 of the act is as follows:effect of non-registration:-(1 .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 2009 (HC)

Deepak Arora and anr. Vs. Shri Vijay Khanna

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : 2009(2)ShimLC340

..... have not given effect to and completed the transfer of the above mentioned property to my clients inspite of the express provisions of the partnership deed and the understanding between the parties.27. section 14 of the indian partnership act, 1932 reads as under:14. the property of the firm: subject to contract between the partners, the property of the firm includes all property ..... co-owner can, without the consent of the other, transfer his interest etc. to a stranger, a partner cannot do this; and lastly but prominently, (4) while in a partnership each partner acts as an agent of the other, in a co-ownership one co-owner is not as such the agent, implied or real of the other. (champaran cane concern v ..... in favour of the partners of the second and third parts are being done and are in process under section 118 of the h.p. land and tenancy act....1. that the partnership business is and shall be that of running hotel and/or some other business as the parties may agree upon and shall be carried on under the name and ..... the respondent. there are claims/allegations and counter-claims/counter allegations. the petitioners have placed on record the following documents:(i) copy of partnership deed dated 26.3.2003(ii) copy of complaint under section 138 of negotiable instruments act, 1881(iii) copy of e-mail dated 6.2.2007(iv) copy of reply addressed to income tax officer(v) copy of .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 16 1974 (HC)

Ashok Chander and ors. Vs. C.P. Bansal and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1974HP48

..... that if the income-tax department accepts and assesses 'chandra trading co.' rajagarh road, s(sic)an, as a 'registered partnership firm' within the provisions of the indian income-tax act, the entire income-tax levied on the firm shall be exclusively paid and borne by the defendants themselves and in the event the ..... defendants shall be liable to pay two-third amount of sales-tax and the plaintiffs 1 and 2 shall pay one-third sales tax payable by the partnership firm upto 15th june, 1973. all sales-tax liability for the future business after 15th of june, 1973, shall be that of the defendants. ..... not forthcoming so that assessment order regarding sales-tax could be made within time. although the decree-holders according to them collected such forms as an act of courtesy on their part, yet the fact of the matter is, that they themselves realized the 'c' forms and helped the judgment-debtors in ..... by the judgment-debtors as they had a lien over it until the liability was discharged. under specified provisions of the sales tax act and the income-tax act, the judgment-debtors were liable to pay the entire taxes even for the period the liability was shared by the decree-holders under ..... same is assessed as an unregistered partnership firm, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 shall pay income-tax in proportion to their respective shares in the partnership for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 1997 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Subash Chand and Co.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : [1998]230ITR16(HP)

..... be entitled to registration, provided it fulfils the other conditions stipulated in section 185 of the income-tax act. the court pointed out that the partnership agreement did not violate any public policy or offend the provisions of section 23 of the indian contract act. the main reasoning is that there was no prohibition in the rules or the conditions of the licence against ..... the provisions of the u. p. excise rules, 1910. the licence contained no prohibition against entering into partnership for carrying on the business in foreign liquor by the holder of the licence. the firm was registered under section 26a of the indian income-tax act, 1922, and it was also renewed for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. but the commissioner ..... supreme court in cit (addl.) v. degaon ganga reddy g. ramakrishna and co. : [1995]214itr650(sc) , where a question arose whether a sub-partnership could claim the benefit of registration under the provisions of the income-tax act. the bench which decided degaon ganga reddy's case : [1995]214itr650(sc) took the view that such registration could be given provided the sub ..... the constitution of a partnership. 7. the above judgment of the andhra pradesh high court as well as the judgment of the supreme court in jer .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 1997 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Subash Chand and Co.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : (1998)146CTR(HP)262

..... be entitled to registration, provided it fulfils the other conditions stipulated in s. 185 of the it act. the court pointed out that the partnership agreement did not violate any public policy or offend the provisions of s. 23 of the indian contract act. the main reasoning is that there was no prohibition in the rules or the conditions of the licence against the constitution ..... partners under the provisions of the u.p. excise rules, 1910. the licence contained no prohibition against entering into partnership for carrying on the business in foreign liquor by the holder of the licence. the firm was registered under s. 26a of the indian it act, 1922, and it was also renewed for the asst. yrs. 1958-59 and 1959-60. but the cit ..... of a partnership.the above judgment of the andhra pradesh high court as well as the judgment of the supreme court in jer & co ..... case (supra) and another judgment of the supreme court in cit vs . degaon ganga reddy g. ramakrishna & co. : [1995]214itr650(sc) where a question arose whether a sub-partnership could claim the benefit of registration under the provisions of the it act. the bench which decided degaon ganga reddys case (supra) took the view that such registration could be given provided the sub .....

Tag this Judgment!


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