Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Court: orissa Page 4 of about 143 results (0.130 seconds)

Apr 05 1988 (HC)

Gadadhar Dixit Vs. Utkal Flour Mills (Pvt.) Ltd.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : [1989]66CompCas188(Orissa)

..... issue no. 2 that the company in question is in substance a partnership concern and, therefore, the principles applicable to dissolution of a partnership as provided under section 44(5) of the indian partnership act are applicable for winding up of the company. admittedly, though there was previously partnership firm, the same was dissolved and a company came into existence. ..... but the mere fact that a pre-existing partnership firm has been converted into a private ..... limited company does not by itself mean that the company retains its character of a partnership. ..... the basis of which the aforesaid prayer has been made are as follows:(a) that the above named company was originally a partnership firm prior to its conversion and incorporation as a company under the indian companies act, 1956. the partnership consisted of seven partners, namely, 1. ramakrishna sharma, 2. smt. durgadevi sharma, 3. srikrishna sharma, 4. sachikanta routray .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 12 1990 (HC)

Ramsewak Kashinath Vs. SarafuddIn and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1991Ori51; 71(1991)CLT49

..... ). on 28-2-1986, the learned trial judge came to hold that the plaintiffs suit was not maintainable for want of registration of the partnership firm as it was hit by section 69 of the indian partnership act. on 5-3-1986, the plaintiff filed an application objecting to the maintainability of the defendants' counter-claim after dismissal of the plaintiffs suit. the said ..... by the rules applicable to plaints.'it may be noted that this provision was not there in the civil procedure code of 1908 and was brought by way of amendment by amending act of 1976 which was given effect to with effect from 1-2-1977.5. so far as first submission of mr. basu is concerned, it depends upon an interpretation of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 20 1990 (HC)

Sri Hara Prasad Hota Vs. Batliboy and Co. Private Ltd. and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 1991(I)OLR70

..... no. 1 batliboy and co. private limited filed. money suit no. 3688 of 1969 agamit the opposite party no. davaloy trading house, a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act in the calcutta high-court and obtained a decree for realisation of rs. 1,05,645.85 with interest at the rate of 6 per ..... between themselves. when the decree is passed, it is against the firm. such a decree is capable of being executed against the property of the partnership and also against two classes of persons individually. they are (sic) persons who appeared in answer to summons served on them as partners and either ..... writing given at the time of such service, whether he is served as a partner or as a person having the control or management of. the ; partnership business, or in both characters and, in default of such notice, the person served shall be deemed to be served as a partneras provided under rule ..... .6. for proper appreciation of the matter it is necessary to notice some provisions of the civil procedure code which deal with suits and execution cases relating to partnership firms. order 30, c. p. c. contains the provisions regarding suits by or against firms and persons carrying on bisiness in names other than their ..... to realise the decretal dues from him and to take coercive process for that purpose.5. as noticed earlier, the suit was filed against the partnership firm only. the petitioner had not been impleaded in the suit as a partner of the firm or in any other capacity. but in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 22 1991 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T. Omer and Company

Court : Orissa

Reported in : (1992)102CTR(Ori)36; [1992]196ITR736(Orissa)

..... any part in the specified item of the property did not arise. the contention of learned standing counsel appears to be legally sound.5. a partnership-firm under the indian partnership act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as 'the partnership act'), 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 ..... own in the partnership assets and when one talks of the firm's property or the firm's assets, all that is meant is property or assets ..... partner may assign his share to another. but what is permissible in that regard is laid down in section 29(1) of the partnership act, that is to say, the right to receive the share of profits of the assignor and accept the account of profits agreed to by the partners. a similar view expressed ..... have a joint or common interest, (see malabar fisheries co. v. cit : [1979]120itr49(sc) .)6. the provisions of sections 14, 15, 29, 32, 37, 38 and 48 of the partnership act, 1932, make it clear that whatever may be the character of the property which is brought in by the partners when the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 22 1993 (HC)

Dayanidhi Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa and anr.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 75(1993)CLT789; 1993(I)OLR358

..... merely registered for some purposes under the companies act does not owe its existence to the companies act. it merely is governed by some provisions of the companies act. if the submission of shri patnaik were to be taken to its logical conclusion, even partnership firms registered under the indian partnership act, 1932 shall have to be regarded as ..... salaried employee.12. shri nanda then contends that the petitioner cannot be said to be an 'officer' as defined in section 2(3) of the indian companies act, 1956 because of which he is not one of the persons who can appear on behalf of the company. this submission is not much relevant ..... of a statutory provision. to the same effect are the decisions in u. p. state warehousing corporation v. c. k. tyagi, air 1970 sc 1244 and indian airlines corporation v. sukhdeo rai, air 1971 sc 1828. the matter was exhaustively dealt in sirsi municipality v. c. k. p. tellis, air 1973 sc ..... also would show that he was 'conducting his practice'' and not really serving the company which aspect of the matter had been taken note of in indian sulphacide's case (supra) by the punjab and haryana high court because of which the advocate was not regarded to be a workman. as to ..... the position of an officer of the appellant.7. shri nanda has referred to a single judge decision of the punjab and haryana high court in indian sulphacide industries v. labour court, (1992) 65 flr 705, in which a practising advocate engaged by a company on retainarship basis was not hold .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 22 1994 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rabindranath Bhol

Court : Orissa

Reported in : [1995]211ITR799(Orissa)

..... , the business is carried on by each of the partners, and the definition of a partnership in the partnership act has been incorporated in the indian income-tax act, in section 2(6b). . . .'6. a partnership as defined in section 4 of the indian partnership act is 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. therefore, when a firm carries on business, it is business carried on by the ..... partners of that firm. one partner is the agent of the other in carrying out that business. consequently, when a partnership ..... in the premises of one of the partners, the said partner, as an individual, would be entitled to the exemption under section 22. on examination of the provisions of the partnership act as well as relying upon the decision of the bombay high court in the case of shantikumar narottam morarji v. cit : [1955]27itr69(bom) , it was held that when a .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 19 1995 (HC)

Manoj Ranjan Patnaik and ors. Vs. Sangram Keshari Patnaik and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 1995(II)OLR167

..... 10. in the case at hand the dissolved firm was an unregistered one and therefore provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932. are applicable. therefore, it has to be seen whether any of the partners of the dissolved firm has got any remedy under the ..... -section(4). thus this court also had given effect to the exceptions carved out by sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 69 of the partnership act from the prohibition imposed by sub-sections (1) and (2)and main part of section (3) even though the firm was not registered under section 69 ..... as follows:learned counsel for the appellants also urged, that, if we take the above view of the provisions contained in section 69(3) of the partnership, act. it would leave the appellants without any remedy whatsoever. it was urged that this could never be the: intention of the legislature. learned counsel further ..... challenging the order of the high court, special leave application was filed in the apex court. considering section 69(3) of the partnership act and section 20 of the arbitration act and the ratio of air 1964 sc 1882 (supra), their lordships held as follows :'undoubtedly, section 69(1) prohibits laying the suit ..... sri laxmi narayan padhi v. sri bhaskar panda, his lordship while considering the scope and ambit of section 69(3) of the partnership act vis-a-vis section 20 of the arbitration act. has opined that sub-section (3) is not. applicable to arbitration proceeding. 'other proceeding' are saved from the purview of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 07 2002 (HC)

Rajanikanta Padhi Vs. B. Kameswar Subudhi (Dead) After Him His L.Rs. a ...

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 2002(I)OLR646

..... same, a ready reference to the relevant provision i. e., sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (in short 'the act 1932') is beneficial and that reads as hereunder:'(2) no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any ..... in that respect the relevant plea which he raised in the court below is as follows :'the suit is also hit under the provisions of the indian partnership act, the right to enforce have not arisen from a contract on behalf of the firm which is unregistered.'to understand the plea and to decide the ..... not maintainable by the plaintiff without including the co-owner, i.e. his brother and the suit is hit by section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932.8. learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent repelled the aforesaid contention and defended correctness of the impugned judgment.9. before discussing the aforesaid points raised ..... non-compliance of section 18-b(2) and rule 11 (iii) ?(3) is the suit not hit under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act ?(4) is the suit maintainable in law ?(5) is the suit barred by limitation ?(6) to what reliefs ?5. in the court ..... defendant-appellant contends that in the written statement, a plea of non-compliance of the provisions of the money lenders act and the suit being bad on account of section 69 of the partnership act had been raised and if these defences were ultimately established, notwithstanding the admissions of the power of attorney holder, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 21 2004 (HC)

D.R. Associates Vs. General Manager, East Coast Railways and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : I(2005)BC10; 98(2004)CLT109; 2005(1)CTLJ146(Ori); 2004(I)OLR689

..... as required under the tender notice. in this regard it is worthwhile to have a look at the provisions of the indian partnership act, particularly, section 14, which speaks as follows :'section 14. the property of the firm : subject to contract between the partners, the property of the firm includes all ..... enumeratesas follows :'section 8. particular partnership : a person maybecome a partner with another person in particular adventuresor undertakings.'relying upon the aforesaid provisions of the partnership act, mr. palit, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the very purpose of formation of ..... over of the partnership. according to thelearned counsel for the opp. parties, the deed of reconstitutingthe partnership was executed on 10.4.2003, just little more thanone month before the tender notice was published, for the purposeof participating in the tender.5. learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard takes usthrough section 8 of the indian partnership act, 1932, which ..... be the separate property of one of the partners. where a partner brings certain property into the common stock as part of his capital, it becomes the partnership property. likewise, the partnership act has specifically included the goodwill among the partners of the firm subject to any contract between the partners, in all accounts for determining the shares. so, whether .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 18 2004 (HC)

Smt. Sabitri Das Vs. Gangadhar Naik and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 98(2004)CLT70

..... filed under section 8(2) of the arbitration act, 1940 vis-a-vis the provision in section 69 of the indian partnership act which prescribes some dis-entitlement to an unregistered partnership firm. the term 'other proceedings' employed in sub-section (3) of section 69 of the partnership act, was considered ejusdem generis to the term ..... 1882, in which the said maxim has been defined by as larger bench in a different manner and because of the ratio in the case of indian oil corporation ltd. v. municipal corporation and anr., air 1995 sc 1480, the ratio in the case of jagadish chandra has to supersede. ..... applying the maxim 'ejusdem generis' to the term 'other proceeding' it is profitable to refer to the cited decisions in the case of indian oil corporation ltd., (supra). it emerges from the narration of fact in that judgment that in the context of section 138 (b) of the ..... of the application for amendment, are proceedings within the meaning of section 141 of the code and therefore, notwithstanding the amendment of section 115 by act 46 of 1999 a revision is still maintainable as against the impugned judgments and orders. in that context, their argument is that the maxim ' ..... of the code inasmuch as the aforesaid title suit has been filed by the plaintiffs-opposite party claiming for maintenance under the hindu adoption and maintenance act, 1956 as the wife and daughters of the petitioner. learned civil judge has granted interim monthly maintenance of rs. 1,000/- to the wife .....

Tag this Judgment!


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