Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Court: madhya pradesh Page 1 of about 359 results (0.061 seconds)

Nov 06 1941 (PC)

Chhedilal Nand Kishore Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax C. P. and U. P.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : [1942]10ITR60(MP)

..... of the assessment, and this it is argued was done.in our opinion the case is concluded by the provisions of section 25a of the income-tax act read with section 5 of the indian partnership act. sec. 25a, clause (1), says,'where, at the time of making an assessment under section 23, it is claimed by or on behalf of ..... business must be deemed to be a joint family business under clause (3) of section 25-a section 5 of the indian partnership act comes into operation and renders this agreement invalid. section 5 says, 'the relation of partnership arise from contract and not from status; and in particular, the members of a hindu undivided family carrying on a family ..... the above judgment. it relates to inquiries made behind the back of the assessee during the assessment or during the hearing of any proceedings under the income-tax act, of which he is a party. in the present case the assessee has full notice of what was being done since the business was assessed for more than ..... runs,where such an order has not been passed in respect of a hindu family hitherto assessed as undivided, such family shall be deemed, for the purposes of this act, to continue to be a hindu undivided family.'in the present case it is admitted that the members of the family are joint in status, but it is ..... this is an application under section 66 (3) of the indian income-tax act.the commissioner of income-tax refused to state a case, the applicants case us that chhedi lal and sons. on the 22nd july, 1934, he executed his .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 22 1957 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gopal Rice Mills

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1958MP292; [1958]34ITR548(MP)

..... the membership of the firm which was challenging the decision of the high court before the supreme court was quite different.6. starting, therefore, with the conclusion that under the indian partnership act as well as the indian income-tax act there can be no recognition of a firm composed of an individual and firms, wehave to see whether in the present case the ..... court has laid down in dulichand laxminarayan v. commr. of income-tax, nagpur : [1956]29itr535(sc) (a), that no such partnership can be centered into under the indian partnership act and no registration is open to such a firm under the indian income-tax act. it is interesting that one of the partners in the firm which went before the supreme court is a partner in ..... order1. this is a reference under section 66 (1)of the indian income-tax act for the opinion orthis court on the following questions :1. whether on the true interpretation of the partnership dead dated 24th july, 1942, are the partners (1) narsingdas, (2) khubchand amarsingh, (3) ramanand sadaram, and (4) dulichand laxminarayan; or are the partners narsingdas and three other firms known ..... partnership is between an individual and three other firms. the application which has been made for renewal in 1950 discloses that the firms which seek to join narsingdas, the individual, consist .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 08 1958 (HC)

Lalji Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : [1958]9STC571(MP)

..... 22nd april, 1952. subsequently by a notice served on the petitioner, gendlal dissolved the partnership on or about 13th september, 1952, and gave notice of dissolution to the registrar of firms under section 63(1) of the indian partnership act. he also instituted civil suit no. 25-a of 1952 on 28th october, 1952, ..... in the court of additional district judge, raipur, against the petitioner and chandratan for dissolution of the partnership and for rendition of accounts. a receiver was appointed ..... . a dealer, as defined in the c.p. and berar sales tax act, 1947, includes a firm and a partnership : see section 2(c). the firm 'bharat metal industries' was registered as a dealer under section 8 of the act. it was, therefore, this firm which could be assessed to sales tax during ..... the periods mentioned above, when it carried on its business as a partnership and was not dissolved. although the orders of assessments mention the name ..... of tax from the partners personally is premature. the department is accordingly directed to realise the arrears of tax initially from the assets of the partnership, whether they may be in the hands of the court, the receiver, or any of the partners or any other person on their behalf. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 1959 (HC)

Samrathmal and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Ministry of Railway and ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1959MP305

..... , being a suit on behalf of a joint hindu family firm, the provisions of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act were nofl artplicable; and that the plaintiff firm had suffered damages due to late delivery and delivery in a damaged condition, amounting to rs. 10,071/6/6 ..... , that it was barred by limitation and that it was not maintainable on the ground that the plaintiff firm was not registered under section 69 of the indian partnership act.9. the trial court held that the plaintiff firm was entitled to sue as assignee of the consignor 'man-gilal sualal' of mandsaur; that the suit ..... by the evidence on record.26. it is then contended that the suit was hit by the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act. but, as pointed out by the learned additional district judge, there is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff is a ..... civil procedure, amply satisfied the requirements of law and that no fresh notices of the claim in suit were necessary.11. under section 77 of the indian railways act, a person shall not be entitled to compensation for the loss, destruction or deterioration of goods delivered to a railway to be carried, unless his ..... by the additional district judge, balaghat, on the sole ground that the notices served by it on the respondent railway companies under section 77 of the indian railways act and under section 80 of the code of civil procedure were not legal and valid for the purposes. of the claim in suit.2. seth .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 1959 (HC)

Vyas Automobiles Vs. Central India Motors and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1959MP425

..... a joint hindu family firm is quite a different legal entity from a firm registered under the indian partnership act. whereas a joint family partnership is created by the operation of law, a partnership under the indian partnership act is one arising out of a contract. in the case of a misdescription there is only an ..... . kulkarni, learned counsel for the plaintiff, did not dispute that a joint hindu family firm was quite distinct from a firm constituted under the indian partnership act. but he contended that the partners of the two firms were the same; that, therefore, the correction by an amendment in the plaint was ..... on behalf of m/s central india motors a firm registered under the indian partnership act, was barred by time. an amendment of a plaint, if it substitutes one legal entity for another, after the period of limitation cannot ..... joint hindu family firm was instituted it would be regarded as deemed to have been instituted on behalf of the firm constituted under the indian partnership act only from the date of the amendment substituting the original plaintiff for the new plaintiff.on this date admittedly the plaintiffs suit as ..... application for amendment of the plaint so as to allege that the firm m/s central india motors was a firm registered under the indian partnership act of which lilaram and lalchand were two partners, and for a correction in the title of the plaintiff in accordance with this allegation. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 02 1960 (HC)

Buddulal Goerlal Mahajan Vs. Shrikisan Chandmal

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1961MP57

..... of jointness based on the evidence of shrikishan. thus, the defendant really gets nowhere to the stage of getting the benefit of section 69 of the indian partnership act. (iii) applicability of section 30 of the indian contract act.13. from the earliest stage of the dispute, the defendant has been thinking of this, as is apparent from his telegram of the 1st april, already ..... courts should take notice on their own. so far, the proposition cannot be seriously questioned; but before we reach the position calling for the application of section 60 of the indian partnership act, the defendant has to dislodge the plaintiffs from the position they have taken as hindu joint family, which can be only on the basis of a finding of fact. 12 ..... the defendant, it is argued here that the plaintiffs will have to prove either that they constitute a joint family, or show that they are a firm registered under the indian partnership act and produce a copy of the certificate and the entry in the books of the registrar of firms. this, it is contended, need not be expressly pleaded, as section 69 ..... shares of the hukumchand mills. the points for decision generally are (i) whether the plaintiffs are really a hindu joint family concern, or a joint venture amounting to partnership attracting section 69 of the indian partnership act; (ii) whether the indore court or the court at dhar has got territorial jurisdiction; (iii) whether these forward contracts are of the nature of wagering contracts under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 1960 (HC)

Bhawarlal Vs. Mathura Prasad

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1962MP141

..... partner, the first respondent would be entitled to the benefit conferred by section 37 of the indian partnership act.25. the learned counsel for the appellant further urged that the suit would be barred by time under article 106 of the indian limitation act, inasmuch as the partnership stood dissolved in diwali, 1954, while the present suit for dissolution was filed on 10-5 ..... 8-1946, the plaintiff-respondent 1, mathuraprasad was introduced as a partner and a deed of partnership of the same date (ex- p-1) was executed between the three partners. however, the partnership was not registered under the indian partnership act. the business was carried on in partnership till diwali of the year 1954 according to the appellant.3. the first respondent's allegation ..... in the plaint was that the partnership was never dissolved; and, as such, he filed a suit on 10-5 ..... -1928 for dissolution of the unregistered partnership and for taking accounts thereof.4. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 11 1960 (HC)

J.B. Mangaram and Co. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1961MP96; [1960(1)FLR518]; (1961)ILLJ89MP

..... article 226 of the constitution of india is by a partner of a firm registered under the indian partnership act which is engaged in the business of manufacture of biscuits and confectionary. 2. the petitioner's manufactory at gwalior has been licensed under the factories act as a factory employing not more than five-hundred workers on any one day during the year ..... there are other undertakings to which it might have been applied. 7. for the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the limitation on the applicability of the act to undertakings of biscuit and confectionery industry employing more than hundred workers does not bring about an unreasonable and arbitrary classification. consequently the notification issued by the opponent state on ..... discretion is not uncontrolled. the statute itself indicates with sufficient clarity the policy or principle for the guidance of the government in the matter of exercise of the discretion. the act, as is apparent from its preamble, is meant for regulating the relations of employers and employees and for the settlement of industrial disputes. it is not a measure dealing ..... there was thus an unreasonable and arbitrary classification between undertakings employing less than hundred workers and those employing more than hundred workers for the purposes of the applicability of the act. 4. in our judgment, the notification in question is not vulnerable to the objection put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner. the principles by which the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 1962 (HC)

Bhawanilal Lachchi Ram and ors. Vs. Badri Lal and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1964MP153

..... the plaintiffs, would, in either case, be within the limitation.8. the next point urged in support of these appeals was that since the association was a partnership which was not registered under the indian partnership act these suits could not lie. it was also urged that the number of partners being more than twenty the association had to be registered under section 11 ..... right to bind them as their agent in respect of his own dealings in cloth. the association could, therefore, not be a partnership. the suits would in the result not be barred by the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act and the association would not, even if its members exceed twenty in number, require registration under section 11 (2) of the ..... partnership agreement or for accounts' of the partnership business, would not be barred by the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act. if a person pays money to another for ..... indian companies act.even if it were to be assumed that the association was a partnership, these suits, not being for the enforcement of the terms of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 1962 (HC)

Laxminarayan Sawalram Vs. Dwarkaprasad Rudmal and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1964MP55

..... it aside.7. then, there is another legal position which, in our opinion, is more decisive of the question involved in this appeal and it is section 34 of the indian partnership act which reads as under :'34. (1) where a partner in a firm is adjudicated an insolvent he ceases to be a partner on the date on which the order of ..... law dissolved by virtue of the decree on 5-7-1955 even before insolvency petition was filed on 14-7-1955. even so, the provisions of section 47 of the indian partnership act specifically provide that even after the dissolution of a firm the authority of each partner to bind the firm, and the other mutual rights and obligations of the partners, continue ..... determination of his interest as a partner in view of this provision would not relate back to the date of the insolvency petition for purposes of indian partnership act which, in our opinion, would prevail overthe provincial insolvency act. in this view the sale held on 28-12-1957 is not affected at all in any manner by the adjudication of dwarkaprasad as an ..... of the court or by virtue of the adjudication of dwarkaprasad as insolvent, the rice mill ceased to be partnership property or assets. in this view then the provisions of sections 48 and 49 of the indian partnership act come into play, and the partnership assets have first to be utilised for purpose of settlement of accounts between the partners and of the debts of .....

Tag this Judgment!


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