Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1984)86BOMLR251a
..... profits should not become otiose, the court dismissed the partner's claim for the arrears of salary when no profits were made.6. if the partnership deed of the press were to contain provisions akin to those elicited above regarding salary being a first charge on the profits, i would have found ..... not affect his relation to the other partners, which is that of co-adventurer and not employee.5. it is not uncommon to find in partnership agreements that certain partners are given a fixed salary. sometimes the intention is to express their initial share of the profits in the form of a ..... as one employed for wages within the meaning of section 2(12) of the act would depend upon whether or not such a partner would be entitled to receive his wages in spite of the fact that the partnership venture ran into losses during the period for which wages were being claimed. if ..... press ('press') at sholapur, a partnership concern, applied under section 77 of the employees' state insurance act, 1948 ('act') to the employees' state insurance court and the labour court ('insurance court') for a declaration that they are not a factory within the meaning of section 2(12) of the act. the application was dismissed by the ..... the jurisprudential concept of a partnership, it can be said that prakash and kumud were 'persons employed for wages' within the meaning of clause 12 of section 2 of the act whether or not they were 'employees' within the meaning of clause 9 of section 2 of the act or under the general law .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1984Delhi233; 26(1984)DLT12; 1984(6)DRJ244; 1984RLR402
..... has failed to appear : provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the provisions of section 30 of the indian partnership act, 1982. (2} where the decree-holder claims to be entitled to cause the decree to be executed against any person other than such a person ..... will not affect a partner who has not been served with summons to appear and answer so far as his property other than the property of the partnership is concerned. obviously, thereforee, the partners in the judgment debtor-firm, in the.instant case, can be proceeded against individually if the conditions laid in ..... tried and determined in any manner in which any issue in a suit may be tried and determined. (4) save as against any property of the partnership, a decree against a firm shall not release, render liable or otherwise affect any partner therein unless he has been served with a summons to appear and ..... which reads as under: '50(1). where a decree has been passed against a firm, execution may be granted-- (a) against any property of the partnership; (b) against any person who has appeared in his own name under rule 6 or rule 7 of order xxx or who has admitted on the pleadings ..... decree, too seems to have been obtained. sub-section (4) of section 42 of the code, which has been introduced by code of civil procedure amendment) act 104 of 1976, makes it abundantly clear that the power to grant leave to proceed individually against a person other than those referred to in clauses (b) & .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : 157ITR543(Mad)
..... distribution of assets between the partners on dissolution amounts to a transfer so as to attract sections 34(3)(b) and 155(5) of the act and the supreme court had held that the partnership firm under the indian partnership act, 1932, is not a legal entity apart from the partners constituting it, that equally in law the firm as such has no separate rights ..... of its own in the partnership assets, that when the partnership assets are distributed as between the partners at the time of the dissolution, there is no transfer ..... two different entities and as the assets belonging to the hindu undivided family have been transferred to the partnership firm, the withdrawal of the development rebate under section 155(5)(i) of the act was fully justified. 4. there was a further appeal by the assessee to the income-tax appellate tribunal contending that when there was a partition in the hindu ..... and the assets which originally belonged to the hindu undivided family became the assets of the partnership firm and this according to the income-tax officer involved a transfer as contemplated under section 155(5)(i) of the income tax act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the act, justifying the withdrawal of the development rebate allowed to the hindu undivided family earlier. the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1984AP200
..... guilty of not maintaining accounts, not convening meetings and was also guilty of malfeasance. it is averred that dissolution under section 44(g) of the indian partnership act can be directed only by the court and not by the arbitrators. it is stated that the plaintiff never expressed his desire to retire from ..... suit involved an alternative relief of dissolution of the firm which was a power vested in the civil court under section 49(g) of the partnership act and that therefore the arbitrators could not be entrusted with the power to decide whether dissolution was necessary on the facts of the case. in ..... 380 and the calcutta, madrass rulings cited therein for the view that the question of dissolution of partnership as per the alternative case, is one for the civil court under section 44(g) of the partnership act. on the other hand, it is contended for the appellant that the arbitrator can equally pass an ..... was, in fact, not argued in the court below.33. the respondent is entitled to succeed on another ground too. section 34 of the indian act stipulates that the applicant who prays for stay, must have been ready and willing, at the commencement of the proceedings and still remain to be ready ..... case the plaintiff ought to be allowed to proceed with his action in this court.'22. we shall now refer to a few rulings arising under the indian arbitration act.23. the supreme court in printers (mys) private ltd., v. p. joseph : 3scr713 speaking through gajendragadkar, j. (as he then was .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1984)8ITD689(Delhi)
..... its bussiness. it is true that the indian partnership act goes further than the english partnership act, 1890, in recognising that a firm may possess a personality distinct from the persons constituting it, the law in india in that respect being more in accordance ..... clause (a) and sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause (b) of section 48.' having regard to the above discussion, 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 own in ..... comp cas 205, the privy council in para 10 of the judgment observed thus (see also  18 comp cas 209) : before the board it was argued that under the indian partnership act, 1932, a firm is recognised as an entity apart from the persons constituting it, and that the entity continues so long as the firm exists and continues to carry on ..... the partners and in the same ratio, since there was no outsider, hence, no extinguishment of any right.the property of the firm as envisaged in section 14 of the indian partnership act, 1932, becomes a part of the assets of the firm and though a partner has no individual capacity, much less any exclusive right to possess or use the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1984)41CTR(Cal)64,150ITR469(Cal)
..... firm and the right of a partner in respect thereof is applicable to the instant case. in this connection, it may be mentioned that according to section 14 of the indian partnership act, property of a firm includes goodwill of the business. further, according to section 29(2), if a partner transfers his interest and the transferring partner ceases to be a partner ..... the goodwill passes to the transferee or the legal representatives.24. in the case of cit v. bhupinder singh atwal : 128itr67(cal) , it was observed 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 a firm as such has no separate rights of its own in ..... his legal representatives will apply to the goodwill as well as to other assets.20. in addanki narayanappa v. bhaskara krishnappa, : 3scr400 , after referring to several sections of the indian partnership act, the supreme court observed as follows (p. 1303) :' from a perusal of these provisions, it would be abundantly clear that whatever may be the character of the property which is ..... to receive the share of the assets of the firm to which the transferring partner is entitled to. it further appears that under the proviso to section 53 of the indian partnership act, in case of dissolution, a partner or his representative may buy the goodwill of the firm and, under section 55(1) of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 149ITR202(Delhi)
..... in the constitution, and that separate assessments had to be made for the two periods. the court referred to s. 42(c) of the indian partnership act, 1932, and held that in view of this position under the partnership law, the ito was not entitled to proceed on the basis as if the same firm continued to be in existence throughout the accounting year ..... on law did arise for consideration of the high court. 4. a host of authorities were cited before us to canvass the proposition as to whether the provisions of the partnership act were applicable and whether it was a case of dissolution of the firm or a mere change in the constitution of the firm. the facts in the present case leave ..... with some strangers take over the assets and liabilities of the old firm and carry on the business. the supreme court further observed (p. 627) : 'under s. 40 of the partnership act, 1932, a firm can be dissolved with the consent of all the partners or in accordance with the contract between the partners; under s. 43 a ..... , and the partners were devi sahai, jagdish prasad and bal kishan dass. jagdish prasad was acting for and on behalf of radhey sham trust. this partnership was re-constituted by the deed of partnership dated june 26, 1963, when ram gopal taken in as the 4th partner. the partnership was at will and could be determined by mutual consent of all the parties. it .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1984Cal261
..... firm exists and continues to carry on its business. it is true that the indian partnership act goes fur-ther than the english partnership act, 1890 in recognising that a firm may possess a personality distinct from the persons constituting it, the law in india ..... council in air 1948 pc 100 para 10 cited by the petitioner's counsel :'before the board, it is urged that under the indian partnership act. 1932 a firm is recognised as an entity apart from the persons constituting it, and that the entity continues so long as the ..... respondent.19. i have already held that the legal fiction of limited entity of a firm as embodied in sections 46 and 47, partnership act, also applies to the original firm in spite of its reconstitution. this principle has been applied and extended in very marry cases mentioned ..... re-constitution and is capable of enforcing its rights accrued before its reconstitution in short will the principles, underlying sections 46 and 47, partnership act, apply on the facts of this case although in terms they are not applicable? court's judicial conscience is bound to be severely ..... partnership act, be made applicable to a firm after its reconstitution the petitioner's counsel also relies on : 3scr421 to establish his contention that reconstitution destroys the identity of the original firm. in that case a suit was instituted against a firm is its, firm name. the firm had four partners one of which was a ruler, of a former indian .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1985)14ITD269(Delhi)
..... by mr. justice v.d. tulzapurkar himself, who had incidentally also delivered the judgment aforesaid, held in malabar fisheries co. v. cit  120 itr 49 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 own in ..... the partnership assets and when one talks of the firm's property or of the firm's assets all that is meant is property or assets in which all partners ..... in the balance sheet shall not be treated as assets, namely :- (a) any amount paid as advance tax under section isa of the indian income-tax act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under section 210 of the income-tax act, 1961 (43 of 1961) ; (b) any amount shown in the balance sheet including the debit balance of the profit and loss account or ..... is includible in the net wealth." 7. the third issue involved was the valuation of huf's interest in a partnership firm and on page 494, paragraph no. 3, while interpreting sections 7(1), 7(2)(a), 7(3) of the act and rules 2a and 2b of the wealth-tax rules, 1957 ('the rules'), their lordships held that the expression used .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1985)44CTR(AP)232
..... the partnership firm. this proposition flows directly from the judgment of the supreme court in narayanappa v. bhaskara krishnappa : 3scr400 . reference may also be invited to the ..... machinery again into the common stock of the partnership, the position here again is fairly settled. when a person throws his individual property into the common stocks of partnership abandoning his separate rights over the same with the intention or treating such property as the property of the partnership firm under s. 14 of the indian partnership act, there is no transfer by the partner to ..... property. the tribunal did not specifically deal with the contention that there was transfer of the assets to the partnership firm. the tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the department. the cit applied for a reference under s. 256(1) of the act and the tribunal referred the above mentioned questions for the opinion of this court. 3. it is settled ..... divided coparceners threw the machinery, which fell to their respective shares, into the common stock of partnership, there is neither a sale nor transfer within the meaning of s. 34(3)(b) of the act and consequently, the provisions of s. 155(5) of the act have no application. 4. there is also another difficulty in accepting the revenue's contention regarding .....Tag this Judgment!