Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Page 98 of about 37,633 results (0.098 seconds)

Mar 20 1985 (HC)

Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1986(26)ELT918(Del)

sunanda bhandare, j.1. the petitioners, a hindu undivided family firm registered under the indian partnership act, 1932 carry on the business as exporters of iron ore at margao, goa. the facts of the case as stated in the petition lie in a very narrow compass. the ..... competent to allow the refund of excess amount of duty under article 226 of the constitution of india.5. the duty levied under section 12 of the customs act, 1962 read with the indian tariff act is rs. 10/- per metric tonne in respect of lumpy iron ore and rs. 5/- per metric tonne in respect of iron ore fines. a provisional assessment ..... of duty can be made under section 18 of the customs act, 1962. under sub-section (1)(a) of section 18 provisional assessment can be made where the proper officer ..... fines. the analysis at the time of loading and destination also shows that the goods the petitioners actually exported contained iron ore fines. there is a power under the customs act to make provisional assessment and this practice was agreed upon.9. the writ petition, thereforee, succeeds and is allowed. the orders dated 7-7-1967, 27-4-1968 and 20 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 1985 (HC)

United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pelaniappa Transp ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1986AP32

..... counsel for the appellant that the right to recover is a common law right or a statutory iii of 1865). therefore, the prohibition engrafted under s. 69(2) of the indian partnership act does not apply to the facts of this case. in support thereof, he relied on the decisions of the kerala and calcutta high courts in kerala arecanut stores v. ramkishore ..... alone. we assume, for the purpose of this case, that m/s. v. k. brothers is an un-registered partnership firm. the effect of non-registration of a partnership firm has been stated in s. 69 (1) and (2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 (act ix of 1932). sub-sec (2) is relevant for the purpose of the case which reads thus :'69 (2) no ..... and that the assignments were made with a view to avoid the rigour of the provisions of s. 69 of the indian partnership act. he also contended that the statutory right under s. 8 of the carriers act is available only to owner of the goods but not to the third parties. therefore, if it is concluded that the suit is not maintainable under ..... learned counsel contends that, as of fact, it is now found that m/s. v. k. brothers is a non-registered partnership firm and that the suit at their instance is not maintainable in view of s. 69 of the indian partnership act. the letter of subrogation and the letter of assignment of right to indemnification are not helpful to the appellant for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 23 1985 (TRI)

Vee Kay Enterprises Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh

Reported in : (1985)14ITD187(Chd.)

..... and haryana high court, a full bench decision in the case of nandlal sohanlal v. cit [1977] 110 itr 170, in income-tax matters we should not resort to the indian partnership act, 1932, etc.3. after taking into consideration the rival submissions and going through the documents and case law cited by the two parties, i am unable to confirm the action ..... partners and other third parties.... (p. 693) in the instant case, evidence regarding share is available within four corners as it is to be as per the indian partnership act, as per clause 24 of the partnership deed and as per section 13, it is to be equal.similarly, reliance of the learned departmental representative on rai bahadur jodha mai ghungar mai's case ..... .... (p. 89) no such defect was pointed out by the ito. then, in the instant case, it is specifically mentioned in clause 24 of the partnership deed that the partnership shall be governed by the provisions of the indian partnership act. coming to the case of kylasa sarabhaiah (supra), what was held regarding specification of share, read as under : (v) that the word 'specifying' was ..... that the two partners meant to have equal shares, which is apparent from clause 24, given above, that 'in respect of matters not mentioned herein, the partnerships shall be governed by the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932'. then conduct of the assessee as well by contributing absolutely equal capital which is in a sum of rs. 18,860 by both the partners .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 26 1985 (HC)

Preethi Creations Represented by Partner P. Ramadas Vs. T.A.P. Enterpr ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1987)1MLJ353

..... and 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, 1932 (9 of 1932).(2) where the decree-holder claims to be entitled to cause the decree to be executed against any person other than ..... conditions laid down in that section are present. the said provision cannot be applied to the individual property of a partner in a suit against the partnership firm. the proposition had been considered by the judicial commissioner of kutch in the case reported in shanthilal v. pranlal a.i.r. 1952 kut 47 ..... hence in view of order 21, rule 50, c.p.c., the individual property of a partner can be attached before judgment in a suit against the partnership. in support of this contention the case reported in bharat survodays mills v. mohatta bros. : air1969guj178 , is cited. in that decision it has been ..... .10. just as there are provisions in the code of civil procedure for proceeding against the property of the partners for realising the decree against the partnership firm, there is no provision under order 38, rule 5, c.p.c., for passing an order of conditional attachment of the property of the ..... the following reasons:(1) an order of attachment before judgment can be passed only in respect of the properties of the respondent,, which is the partnership firm;(2) the property sought to be attached is an individual property of a partner of the firm and the same cannot be attached before judgment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 02 1985 (HC)

Hazarilal and Company Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1985WLN(UC)56

..... of 1973 was filed by m/s hazarilal & company against the state of rajasthan on 2-1-73, alleging that they are a partnership firm. the partners are hazarilal, brijlal and dalip. the partnership has been registered under the indian partnership act and possesses a certificate of registration. the three partners of the plaintiff firm took a theka of the country liquor of bolawali for ..... supply liquor because the distillery had no empty bottles.6. the following issue were drawn on the pleadings of the parties:(1) whether firm hazarilal and company was a registered partnership firm and hazariial, brijlal and dalip were its partners and whether the plaintiff firm was entitled to sue on the basis of the agreement in dispute ?(2) whether the defendant ..... and against the state.4. the defendant state in reply alleged that the defendant state had given a theka to hazarilal, brijlal and dalip. the theka was not to the partnership and, therefore, the firm was not entitled to bring the suit. the excise officers never refused to supply liquor and the failure was on the part of the plaintiffs themselves ..... the plaintiffs failed to lift the minimum amount of liquor and adjusted a sum of rs. 339.14 out of amount lying deposit with them3. according to the rajasthan excise act, 1950, rajasthan excise rules, 1956, rajasthan issue and sale price of country liquors rules, 1964, the defendant was not entitled to forfeit the deposit. the amount of guarantee is nothing .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 10 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C.A. Ouseph and Sons

Court : Kerala

Reported in : [1985]154ITR598(Ker)

..... come up before a full bench on reference by a division bench of this court.5. section 2(23) of the i.t. act defines 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' as having the meanings respectively assigned to them in the indian partnership act, 1932, subject to the exception that the expression ' partner' shall also include any person who being a minor has been admitted to the ..... benefits of partnership. the charge of income-tax under section 4 of the act is on every person whose total income of the previous year or years is liable to ..... such is a separate and distinct unit for purposes of assessment. sections 26, 48 and 55 of the act fully bear out this position. these provisions of the act go to show that the technical view of the nature of a partnership under english law or indian law, cannot be taken in applying the law of income-tax.'15. the supreme court in state ..... law, there is no prohibition for the creation or existence of two or more separate firms or partnerships by the same partners.' 14. cit v. a.w. piggies & co. : [1953]24itr405(sc) , it is stated, with reference to the provisions of the indian i.t. act, 1922, as follows at page 409 :'the partners of a firm are distinct assessable entities, while the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 1985 (HC)

Jani Nautamlal Venishankar, Wadhwan Vs. Vivekanand Co-operative Housin ...

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : AIR1986Guj162; (1985)2GLR1264

..... that it envisages no uniform method of issuing notice of retirement to all those who have dealings with the firm before and after the retirement. what s. 32 of the indian partnership, act does is to remove the distinction between public notice and private notice. it enacts that public notice would be sufficient both in the case of the old customers as well ..... enacting it, the previous law on the subject and the mischief which the statute intended to cure should be looked into. under the law as it stood prior to the indian partnership act an active partner who had retired from a firm could continue to remain liable for the debts contracted subsequently by the continuing firm unless those who had previous dealings with ..... of such fact. mr. shah for the appellant on the other hand contended that requirement of issuance of public notice of retirement as contemplated by s. 32(3) of the indian partnership act is not a condition precedent for exonerating the retiring partner from his liability regarding transactions undertaken by the remaining partners after the retirement of outgoing partner and that if it ..... jointly and severally with other partners to make good the suit claim as no public notice of the appellants retirement was published as required by s. 32(3) of the indian partnership act and consequently, the decree passed against defendant no. 3 jointly with other defendants is wholly sustainable. we may mention at this stage one development that took place at the time .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 03 1985 (SC)

Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Erna ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1985SC1143; 1986(24)ELT186(SC); [1985]155ITR158(SC); 1985(1)SCALE1264; (1985)4SCC35; [1985]Supp1SCR135; [1985]60STC7(SC); 1986(1)LC34(SC)

..... of a business carried on by all or any of them acting 'for all'. the section declares further that the persons who have entered into ..... , defined a 'partnership' as 'the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits ..... assessable in the hands of the partnership firm as a taxable entity separate and distinct from the partners there is first a decision under the law of partnership; thereafter, the second question arises, the question as to assessment under the tax law. it is clear, therefore, that reference must be made first to the partnership law.11. the indian partnership act, 1932 has, by section 4 .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 1985 (HC)

Paras Ram Harnand Rai Vs. Om Parkash

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 28(1985)DLT301

..... the plaintiff in the plaint has been described as 'the firm m/s paras ram harnand rai (registered under the indian partnership act......' this description itself proves that the suit had been filed by the partnership firm. (11) mr. suri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, vehemently contended that the respondent was a licensee ..... on april 20, 1981. (7) feeling aggrieved the appellant had filed this second appeal. (8) sub section (2) of section 69 of the partnership act reads as under : '69(2).no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of ..... . his name, however had not been shown in the register of the firm and consequently the suit was barred under section 69(2) of the partnership act. with these findings the suit was dismissed on june 4, 1977. (6) the appeal filed by the appellant against the said order was dismissed ..... filed by one of its registered partners'?) would be decided first. (5) the trial court held that the appellant firm was duly registered under the partnership act on may 29, 1946 with five partners-sat narain goenka, durga prasad goenka, rajendra kumar goenka, suraj narain and prem narain. the last two ..... the suit was not properly valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction ; and (6) the appellant firm was not a duly registered firm under the partnership act and the suit had not been filed by the registered partner. (3) by an order dated october 28, 1969 the learned subordinate judge while deciding .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 1985 (HC)

Sohanlal Basant Kumar Vs. Umraomal Chopra

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1985(1)WLN791

..... the parties that the plaintiff firm was duly registered on nov. 5, 1963 with the registrar of firms, rajasthan, jaipur under the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932, as appears from the registration certificate ex. 1. a certified copy of the entry of the register of firm produced as ex. 2 on ..... to the interpretation of the provisions of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act').2. the only question argued before us in this appeal related to the maintainability of the suit by a partnership firm and it was submitted by the learned counsel for plaintiff appellant ..... the said suit was not maintainable for non compliance with the provisions of section 69(2) of the partnership act.47. in the result the, appeal fails and is dismissed but without any order as to costs. the learned district judge was also justified ..... of firm as partner of the said firm on that date, the requirement contained in the second limb of section 69(2) of the partnership act was not fulfilled in the present case. therefore, the plaintiff's suit was rightly dismissed by the trial court on the preliminary ground that ..... taken by the bombay, madras, travancore-cochin, punjab, jammu & kashmir and calcutta high court regarding the interpretation of section 69(2) of the partnership act, while we respectfully dissent from the view taken by the gujarat, mysore and patna high courts and the allahabad high court in m/s. ramkumar .....

Tag this Judgment!


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