Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Court: orissa Page 1 of about 143 results (0.040 seconds)

Mar 11 1953 (HC)

Orient Fast Colour Dye Works Vs. Commr. of Income-tax

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1953Ori79

..... be disposed of by answering the first question only, leaving the second question open. 11. section 2 (6b) of the indian income-tax act says that the expression 'partner' shall have the same meaning as in the indian partnership act. section 4 of the indian 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. thus the carrying on of the business of partnership is the primary duty which all the partners of some of ..... the partners acting for all are required to do. the management of a ..... the business they are carrying on the business qua partners and not in any other capacity. this seems to be the main reason why under section 13 (a) of the partnership act a partner is not entitled to receive remuneration for taking part in the 'conduct of the business' unless there is a contract between the parties to the contrary. the underlying .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 1955 (HC)

Mayurbhanj State Bank Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa ...

Court : Orissa

Reported in : [1956]29ITR253(Orissa)

..... position is that the bank itself is completely owned by the state of orissa and it is not incorporated under the provisions of the indian companies act. neither has it been registered under the indian partnership act. but from the provisions of the order constituting the bank it is clear that it is not only completely owned, controlled an directed ..... refund of the income-tax paid by the mayurbhanj state bank on the above two counts and it is under the provisions of section 48 of the indian income-tax act. a refund was allowed in respect of the government securities but refused in respect of the dividends paid by the companies. so this reference is only ..... can apply for refund. the very foundation of sir jamshedjis application is that his client being a ruler and being a sovereign cannot be an assessment under the act. in my opinion the argument advanced by sir jamshedji is self-destructive. if he is not an assessee and cannot be assessed and cannot be subject to ..... on the basis of which the petition for refund has been filed.3. it is manifest that in order that the petition under section 48 of the income-tax act may be maintain the condition required under the section must be fulfilled.the section runs thus :'48. (1) if any individual, hindu undivided family, company, local ..... mohapatra, j. - this is a reference under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act in respect of a question of a question of law arising out of the order of the appellate tribunal of income-tax dated august 26, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 21 1958 (HC)

Bajranglal Chowkhani and anr. Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1958Ori280; [1959]37ITR522(Orissa)

..... assessment which is payable by them. thus, the provisions of section 44 are clearly attracted. 5. section 2(6b) of the income-tax act lays down that 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' have the same meanings respectively as in the indian partnership-act, 1932 (act ix of 1932), provided that the expression 'partner' includes any person who being a minor has been admitted to the benefits of ..... partnership under the indian partnership act. 'partnership' has been defined in section 4. according to that section 'partnership' is the relation between the persons who nave agreed to share the ..... profits of business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. persons who have entered into partnership with one another are called individually 'partners' and collectively .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 17 1958 (HC)

Daitari Mohapatra Vs. Brundaban Matia

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1959Ori110

..... can be said that hehas committed an illegality.5. the second question requires careful consideration. it is an unchallenged fact that the partnership was not registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act. sub-section (i) of section 69 of that act bars a suit to enlorce any right arising from a contract by a person suing as a partner of a firm against ..... for accounts of dissolved firm, or any right or power to realise the property of a dissolved firm.'it is conceded that, by virtue of section 42(b) of the partnership act the partnership was dissolved on the completion of the undertaking on the 5th june 1944. ' doubtless, if under the terms of the agreement between the partners the accounts were required to ..... ram, air 1947 all 229 held that the suit was maintainable as it would come within the scope of clause (a) of sub-section(3) of section 69 of the partnership act.as regards the other questions, he thought that in view of the previous decision of the additional district judge affirming the findings of the trial court it was not open ..... committed an error of law in holding that the suit came within the exception contained in clause (a) of section 69 of the partnership act and that it is barred by sub-section (1) of section 69 as admittedly the partnership was registered.4. so far as the first point is concerned, the learned advocate for the appellant relied on mst. chauli v .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 1959 (HC)

Popsingh Mahadeo Prasad Vs. Dipchand Ray and anr.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1960Ori123; 26(1960)CLT471

..... any reliance on these accounts to come to any definite finding. however, the suit not being maintainable under sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act, and even if it is maintainable, the suit having been barred by limitation these questions really do not arise.11. in the result, the appeal must ..... defendant no. 1 and challanged the finding of the trial judge in respect of both the bar under sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act as well as of limitation. he argued that the suit though filed in the name of popsing mahadeo prasad it was an individual suit by mahadeo prasad ..... . dasgupta and the suit being by an unregistered firm must be held to be barred under sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act.8. coming to the question of limitation, the suit admittedly was filed on 27-9-50. according to the defendant either article 61 or article 64 ..... no. 20 of 1951: (air 1960 orissa 119). in that case no specific plea under sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act was taken in the written statement, but there was necessary evidence for the application of that section to be found on the record. thus the ..... , came to the conclusion that the suit is clearly barred under sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act. he also held that whether article 61 or article 64 of the limitation act was applicable, the suit is barred by limitation. he further held that the plaintiff has not been successful to establish .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 1960 (HC)

Krutartha Acharya Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and OrissA.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : [1961]41ITR320(Orissa)

..... of partnership (exhibit a) and the deed of rectification (exhibit d) taken together ..... being a minor has been admitted to the benefits of partnership. hence, the limited question for consideration is whether the deed ..... assumes that independent of the minor, there must be a partnership that may be either in existence or that may come into existence. in section 2 (6b) of the income-tax act the position has been clarified by saying that the terms 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' have the same meanings respectively as in the indian partnership act provided that the expression 'partner' includes any person who .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 1960 (HC)

Kruthartha Acharya Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1960Ori183

..... be either in existence or that may come into existence. in section 2 (6-b) of the income-tax act the position has been clarified by saying that the terms 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' have the same meanings respectively as in the indian partnership act provided that the expression 'partner' includes any person who being a minor has been admitted to the benefits of ..... partnership. hence, the limited question for consideration is whether the deed of partnership (ext. a) and the deed of rectification (ext. d) taken ..... together would show that the minor rakindranath was only admitted to the benefits of partnership or else ..... 26a of the indian income-tax act should have been granted to the firm as constituted by the said deed dated 25-7-1951 and the deed of rectification dated 20-2-1952, for any one or more of assessment years 1950-51, 1952-53 and 1953-54? 5. question no. (i): section 30(1) of the partnership act says that though .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 05 1960 (HC)

Chiman Ram Bhatar and ors. Vs. Ganga Saha and anr.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1961Ori94

..... was right in dismissing the suit on the ground of non-maintainability under section 69 of the indian partnership act. it appears that no point was taken by the defendants under section 69 of the indian partnership act in their written statement. it appears that the defendants sought to raise the point under section ..... the institution of the suit, the suit was not maintainable by reason of section 69 of the indian partnership act. the learned lower appellate court also found that assuming that it was not a partnership but a joint family firm, the two brothers of plaintiff no. 2 not having been joined as ..... this case, however, has no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case, where registration as required under section 69 of the partnership act merely refers to the enforcibility of the right, which the plaintiff has already got on the cause of action to recover the amount of loan ..... prejudiced by reason of the defendants taking the point of registration under section 69 of the partnership act at such a late stage. if the defendants had taken this plea in the written statement, then it was open to the plaintiffs to ..... the written statement. the learned lower appellate court who decided this case in may 1958 however accepted the defence plea under section 69 of the partnership act and dismissed the suit as aforesaid. 4. mr. l. k. das gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, contended that the plaintiffs are .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 1960 (HC)

Fazl Bhai Dhala and Co. Vs. Collector of Sales Tax

Court : Orissa

Reported in : [1961]12STC216(Orissa)

..... was contended before the sales tax authorities that, after the expiry of that period, the partnership between the two became a partnership-at-will by virtue of section 17(b) of the indian partnership act and it was dissolved by giving a notice as required by section 23(1) of that act on 18th january, 1950, prior to the quarters in question. the sales tax authorities ..... the sales tax authorities to take a different view especially in view of the conduct of the petitioner in not reporting about the dissolution of the partnership under section 18(a) of the orissa sales tax act and in his continuing to file returns and maintaining accounts in the name of the firm. i must therefore hold that there was no error ..... no. (6) is therefore answered as follows:on the findings of fact of the collector of commercial taxes it must be held that the partnership firm continued to exist for the purpose of the orissa sales tax act.the other questions do not arise for decision and need not be answered. the reference is disposed of accordingly. there will be no order ..... in the alternative the deductions claimed in the returns may be exempted from taxation under article 286(2) of the constitution ?(5) whether a partnership firm still continues to function for the purposes of the sales tax act even though it is dissolved by agreement under a registered deed of dissolution and notice of dissolution is given to the appropriate authorities, and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 22 1961 (HC)

Tulsiram Sanganeria and anr. Vs. Smt. Anni Bai and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1963Ori11

..... family and can proceed against the entire joint family assets in the hands of the junior members thereof.reference was made to section 5 of the indian partnership act, 1932. section 5 states that the relationship of partnership arises from contract and not from status, and in particular, the members of a hindu undivided family carrying on a family business as such, are not ..... such; (iii) assuming both manilal and surajmal were the kartas of their families and had entered into the partnership, the partnership stood dissolved under section 42 of the indian partnership act, 1932, immediately after the death of surajmal in 1946. accordingly, pannalal by executing the suit-pronotes cannot bind the other partners; (iv) the course of dealings and the books of ..... the members of the joint family, when the manager is conducting the business in a proper way.14. mr. roy argued that the partnership stood dissolved immediately after the death of surajmal. he referred to clause (c) of section 42 of the indian partnership act;'subject to contract between the partners, a firm is dissolved by the death of a partner.'true, normally the ..... partnership would stand dissolved on the death of a partner unless it is otherwise contracted for, but if it is found from the subsequent .....

Tag this Judgment!


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