Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Page 4 of about 36,012 results (0.158 seconds)

Feb 07 1940 (PC)

Pratapchand Ramchand and Co. Vs. Jehangirji Bomanji Chinoy

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1940Bom257; (1940)42BOMLR497

..... that the firm was registered on november 13, 1933, under the name of pratapchand ramchand & co. the document gives the particulars which are required by section 58(i) of the indian partnership act, and it shows that at the date of registration there were three partners, viz. (1) pratapchand ramchand, (2) chhogamal dhanaji, and (3) chunilal idanji. on behalf of the defendant ..... a partner. i therefore proceed upon the footing that this firm was in fact dissolved on the death of pratapchand ramchand.6. chapter vii of the indian partnership act deals with the registration of firms. the act does not make the registration of firms compulsory but voluntary. section 58 provides the method by which a firm may be registered and prescribes what must be ..... the plaintiffs. the defendant also puts the plaintiffs to prove their allegation that they are a firm, registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. five issues were raised of which the first is, whether the plaintiffs are a firm duly registered under the indian partnership act of 1932. it was agreed by learned counsel that i should try that issue as a preliminary issue.2. in ..... was filed, and that therefore the suit was bad by reason of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act. 5. for the purpose of determining whether this argument is sound it is necessary to refer to certain section s of the indian partnership act. section 42 of the act provides that subject to contract between the partners a firm is dissolved, among other things, by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 26 1941 (PC)

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the National Cycle Importing Compan ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1941Mad673; (1941)2MLJ152

..... must be looked upon as a juridical person. section 2(6-b) says that the words 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' have the same meanings respectively as in the indian partnership act, 1932, and section 4 of that enactment states that persons who have entered into partnership with one another are called individually 'partners' and collectively 'a firm'. this being the position, we are unable to ..... aside the order of the income-tax officer and directing that amritlal bhaichand shaw should be assessed on the entire profits as successor under section 26(2) of the indian income-tax act.4. we are concerned in this case only with the provisions of section 26(2) as it stands as the result of the amendment made in the year 1939 ..... it can be said that a firm which has been dissolved 'cannot be found' within the meaning of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 26 of the indian income-tax act, 1922, notwithstanding that all the members of the firm are alive and can be found.2. the assessee is the proprietor of a business carried on under the style ..... say that the firm 'cannot be found', when all the partners are here and two of them have paid their proportionate share of the tax.7. the court is not concerned with any further provisions of the act which may .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 26 1941 (PC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. National Cycle Importing Compan ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1941]9ITR502(Mad)

..... firm must be looked upon as a juridical person. section 2(6b) says that the words 'firm' 'partner' and 'partnership' have the same meanings respectively as in the indian partnership act 1932, and section 4 of that enactment states that persons who have entered into partnership with one another are called individually 'partners' and collectively 'a firm.' this being the position, we are unable to ..... aside the order of the income-tax officer and directing that amritlal bhaichand shah should be assessed on the entire profits as successor under section 26(2) of the indian income-tax act.'we are concerned in this case only with the provisions of section 26(2) as it stands as the result of the amendment made in the year 1939. the ..... it can be said that a firm which has been dissolved 'cannot be found' within the meaning of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 26 of the indian income-tax act, 1922, notwithstanding that all the members of the firm are alive and can be found.the assessee is the proprietor of a business carried on under the style of ..... say that the firm 'cannot be found', when all the partners are her and two of them have paid their proportionate share of the tax.the court is not concerned with any further provisions of the act which may .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 07 1941 (PC)

Krishnaji Bharmalji and Co. Vs. Abdulrazak Ahmedbhoy

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1941)43BOMLR888

..... is rs. 2,000. the defendants' objections are two: (1) that the assignment is executed only by seremal krishnaji and under section 19, sub-section (2), clause (c), of the indian partnership act, 1932, one partner in the plaintiff firm had no authority to do so; and (2) that there was an agreement between the plaintiff firm and the defendants which prevented the ..... in a trading firm has a right to assign a debt. this is an ordinary function of a partner and a transaction in the ordinary course of business of a partnership firm. but as a matter of policy the legislature has enacted that a partner has no implied authority to compromise or relinquish any claim or a portion of a claim ..... plaint, and, secondly, that he himself had made the application for execution. he has contended that this was done because each partner in his firm had authority to do all acts. on looking at the two documents it is clear that these statements are untrue. in view of these statements of seremal i am unable to accept his statement about the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 1941 (PC)

Samuel Nadar Vs. Thangayya Nadar

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1942Mad104; (1941)2MLJ490

..... of carrying on a chit fund was completed by the end of the fiftieth month, then there were was a dissolution of the partnership under section 42 of the indian partnership act. that would be on 14th may, 1928. if there was a dissolution on that date, then under article 106 of the second ..... schedule of the indian limitation act a suit for an account would have to be filed within three years from that date, unless in the ..... reference to arbitration and an attempt to settle the accounts and that there was an agreement for division of the assets and liabilities of the partnership between the partners. unfortunately the agreement pleaded by the plaintiff was denied by the defendant and the defendant succeeded in satisfying the lower courts ..... meanwhile there were acknowledgments within three years of each other. the lower appellate court held that the business of the partnership or the undertaking or adventure ..... suit out of which this second appeal arises for dissolution of a partnership which he and the defendant are said to have been carrying on. the business of the partnership consisted in the running of a chit transaction, both the partners acting as stake-holders. the chit was to be conducted for a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 1941 (PC)

Krishnaswami Reddiar Alias Rajah Chidambara Reddiar Vs. Venugopala Red ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1942Mad614; (1942)1MLJ137

..... view. varadaehariar, j., agreed with pandrang row, j. section 74 of the indian partnership act enacts:nothing in this act or any repeal effected thereby shall affect or be deemed to affect--(a) any right, title,. interest, obligation or liability already acquired, accrued or incurred before the commencement ..... of opinion between pandrang row, j., and venkataramana rao,. j. had to consider whether section 69, clause 2 of the indian partnership act was applicable to a suit filed after the passing of the act to a promissory note executed before the passing of the act. pandrang row, j., took the view that section 74 expressly saved the suit, venkataramana rao, j., taking a different ..... operation will not be given to a statute so as to affect, alter or destroy any tested right. see section 6, clause (c) of the indian general clauses act and section 8, clause (c) of madras act i of 1891. for to do so would result in great injustice, and it will be presumed that the legislature did not intend to deprive any ..... were in force on the date of its inception still continued to be in force, especially in view of section 38 of the interpretation act, 1889, and clauses 10 and 11 of the government of india (adaptation of indian laws) order, 1937. this is because no other provision has been made by the 'legislature or authority empowered to regulate the matter in .....

Tag this Judgment!

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!

Nov 27 1941 (PC)

In Re: Balubhai Kallianchand

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1942)44BOMLR171

..... partnership firm under the provisions of that act showing balubhai, uttamchand and shantichand as partners. the minor gulabchand therefore contends that his ..... kallianchand in 1915, his sons amarchand and balubhai carried on business in partnership in the name of kallianchand sobhagchand. after the death of amarchand in 1932 balubhai, uttamchand and shantichand continued to carry on business in partnership in the same name. after the indian partnership act came into force, the firm of kallianchand sobhagchand was registered as a ..... share in these properties is not liable for the debts incurred by his two brothers and his uncle for the purposes of the business of then partnership ..... 2) even if the two branches constitute a joint and undivided hindu family, whether the firm of kallianchand sobhagchand was a joint family firm or a contractual partnership firm consisting of the insolvents as partners. it is clear that i cannot decide these issues on affidavits, and the only question that arises on this notice .....

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!

Mar 03 1942 (PC)

Goverdhandoss Tokersey Vs. M. Abdul Rahiman and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1942Mad634; (1942)2MLJ636

..... behalf of'' or in other words, for the benefit of the firm of goverdandoss tokersey, it falls within the mischief of section 69 (2) of the indian partnership act (act ix of 1932) and is liable to be dismissed on that ground. we have already referred to the fact that the plea advanced on behalf of the defendants ..... and was properly instituted by the plaintiff and the defendant's objection that the present suit falls within the mischief of section 69 (2) of the indian partnership act is therefore overruled.14. we must now see whether the plaintiff was entitled to bring the suit in his own name. it is true that the ..... opinion, whether the benefit of a suit is to go to any person other than the plaintiff ultimately. the provisions of section 69 (2) of the indian partnership act could only be attracted to a suit if it was instituted either by or on behalf of the firm, that is to say, ex facie it purports ..... was actually filed in the interest of the firm. he urged that such a suit would fall within the ambit of section 69 (2) of the indian partnership act and would be covered by the words 'on behalf of the firm' used in that section. we are not impressed by that argument. a stringent provision ..... brought by the plaintiff on behalf of the firm and would be maintainable if the firm had been duly registered before its institution as required by the indian partnership act. the reasons for this change of front are not far to seek. it was not denied on behalf of the plaintiff that the firm of .....

Tag this Judgment!


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