Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Year: 1940 Page 1 of about 21 results (0.058 seconds)

Jan 15 1940 (PC)

Rm. L.M.L.V. Alagammai Achi and anr. Vs. Vr. Pl. M. Palaniappa Chettia ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-15-1940

Reported in : AIR1940Mad580; (1940)1MLJ469

..... participation, however active, in the conduct of the family business, a position which has received additional emphasis from the provisions of section 5 of the indian partnership act which postulate the possibility of members of a joint family carrying on the family business without becoming partners therein in the legal sense of the term. ..... again, the part taken by a junior member, while it may not be sufficient to justify an inference of partnership, may be such as to lead others to act on the belief that he is a partner, in which case the member will be precluded by the principle of estoppel ..... however, somewhat difficult to see how the rule of estoppel which can only preclude proof of facts as against individuals actually misled, can give rise to a partnership quoad the 'general public'.5. on the other hand, in sitharama chettiar v. sivagurunatha chetty (1930) m.w.n. 371, it was thought that, ..... other two learned judges, however, have not clearly indicated on what legal basis personal liability in such a case rests--whether it is based on implied partnership or estoppel by holding out or ratification. in ramaswami chettiar v. srinvasa aiyar (1935) 70 m.l.j. 214, the view is expressed that ..... of his conduct in taking an active part in the business. both the learned judges were of opinion that sections 247 and 248 of the indian contract act did not apply to the case and based their conclusion apparently on the principles of hindu law. sadasiva aiyar, j., held that both by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 07 1940 (PC)

Pratapchand Ramchand and Co. Vs. Jehangirji Bomanji Chinoy

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-07-1940

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!

Apr 25 1940 (PC)

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahaliram Ramjidas

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-25-1940

Reported in : (1940)42BOMLR997

..... the high court of judicature at fort william in bengal delivered on a reference made under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922. the respondents are a registered partnership firm carrying on business in calcutta.2. the question in the appeal turns on the true construction of section 34 of ..... materials and informations as are available to him, reason to believe that income from any of the heads of income described tinder section 6 of the indian income-tax act-in the present instance, from ' business' and ' other sources', which should have been assessed in the year of assessment has escaped assessment, ..... (at p. 445). caution is necessary in applying decisions on a british income tax act to the indian income-tax act, but the reasoning of lush j. is general and: is not affected by specialities of the british act. it is apposite to the respondents' contention in the present case. their lordships are ..... prescribed by the section except after a decision taken in a quasi-judicial enquiry.10. the section, although it is part of a taxing act, imposes no charge on the subject, and deals merely with the machinery of assessment. in interpreting provisions of this kind the rule is that ..... the indian income-tax act, 1922. that section enacts:-34. if for any reason income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax has escaped .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 08 1940 (PC)

Mahomedally Tyebally Vs. Safiabai

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-08-1940

Reported in : (1941)43BOMLR388

..... step in this reasoning can be justified.13. it was not contended before the board that the plaintiff's suit is of the character mentioned in article 106 of the indian limitation act. it is a suit against certain mahomedan co-heirs by a person entitled to part of the interest of an heir, and the high court on appeal rightly held ..... , 1936, dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff's claim was within article 106 of the indian limitation act, 1908, which prescribes a period of three years from the date of dissolution for a suit for an account and a share of the profits of a dissolved partnership. on appeal this decree was set aside by a division bench (beaumont c.j. and ..... . but on may 10, 1936, rukhiaboo hersell applied to be brought on the record in her mother's stead and claimed to share in the relief asked by the plaint. acting under rule 10 of order i of the code, barlee j., on january 22, 1936, added her as defendant no. 7 to the suit. at the trial the learned judge .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 25 1940 (PC)

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.M.S. Karuppiah Pillai

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-25-1940

Reported in : AIR1941Mad255; (1941)1MLJ120

..... distinct from the partners who compose it. in two cases which have come before this court it has been accepted that where a partner carries on the business of the partnership after dissolution he does 'succeed' within the meaning of section 26(2). these cases are karuppaswami moopanar v. commissioner of income-tax, madras : [1934]2itr284(mad) and ..... raised in this reference is whether a partner who continues the partnership business after the dissolution of the partnership succeeds to the business within the meaning of section 26(2) of the indian income-tax act, 1922. on the 16th september, 1935, the assessee and one venkatarama aiyar entered into a partnership for the production and exhibition of a cinema film called 'pathi ..... when venkatarama aiyar retired from the partnership and was paid the amount of ..... bhakthi'. .the partnership continued until the month of may of the following year, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 25 1940 (PC)

S. M. S. Karuppiah Pillai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-25-1940

Reported in : [1941]9ITR1(Mad)

..... quite distinct from the partners who compose it. in two cases which have come before this court it has been accepted that where a partner carries on the business of partnership after dissolution he does 'succeed' within the meaning of section 26(2). these cases are karuppaswami moopanar v. commissioner of income-tax, madras, and commissioner of income-tax, ..... question raised in this reference is whether a partner who continues the partnership business after the dissolution of the partnership succeeds to the business within the meaning of section 26(2) of the indian income-tax act, 1922. on september 16, 1935 the assessee and one venkatarama ayyar entered into a partnership for the production and exhibition of a cinema film called 'pathi bhakthi ..... venkatarama ayyar retired from the partnership and was paid the amount of the ..... '. the partnership continued until the month of may of the following year, when .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 1940 (PC)

In Re: the Central Talkies Circuit

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-07-1940

Reported in : AIR1941Bom205; (1941)43BOMLR258

..... to be littles doubt that the commissioner would be entitled to hold that the deed executed by the applicants was not a correct partnership deed. 'partnership,' as defined by the partnership act, and which definition is adopted by the indian income-tax act, is a relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them ..... acting for all. it is that relationship, as set out in the partnership deed, which, the commissioner has to determine, exists or not.11. approaching the question ..... course, not disputed that the object of the alteration was to avoid the effect of section 16(3) of the indian income-tax act.3. on an application to register the firm, the income-tax officer refused registration on the ground that the partnership deed produced was one prepared only to avoid what he calls 'proper taxation' owing to the operation of the ..... two annas and his major son two annas and two outside partners. as from april 1, 1937, an amendment was introduced into the, indian income-tax act by the addition of section 16(3) under which the share of a wife or minor son in a partnership has to be included in the income of an assessee. having that provision in mind, a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 1940 (PC)

Panchanan Mandal and anr. Vs. Sashi Bhusan Pradhan and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-15-1940

Reported in : AIR1940Cal281

..... of agricultural land fails. we have therefore here a right conferred by an existing indian law, namely section 68, t.p. act, relating to a matter enumerated in entry 10 of the concurrent legislative list in schedule 7, government of india act, 1935. the entry in question reads:contracts, including partnership, agency, contracts of carriage, and other special forms of contract, but not including ..... beyond controversy. whether the limitation expressed by these added words has the effect of saving the right conferred by section 68(1)(a), t.p. act, or any similar right conferred by any other 'existing indian law' is a question upon which it is unnecessary to pronounce any opinion in the present rule. that question may arise for decision if and when ..... contracts relating to agricultural land.8. section 26g, ben. ten. act, was enacted by a provincial legislature in 1938 and was not assented to by ..... is this : that the opening words of section 26g(5) 'notwithstanding anything contained in this act or in any other law' must be deemed to mean and always, to have meant: 'notwithstanding anything contained in this act or in any other law, not being an 'existing indian law' with respect to a matter enumerated in the concurrent legislative list.'9. with the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 20 1940 (PC)

Bhagwant Genuji Girme Vs. Gangabisan Ramgopal

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-20-1940

Reported in : AIR1940Bom369; (1940)42BOMLR750

..... and that the cause of action is founded on the agreement between the partners in the winding up of the partnership defining the conditions under which each partner should act with the partnership property. we have given careful consideration to that aspect of the case presented to us, but we think it ..... or a benefit arising out of that place in the sense in which that expression is used in section 2, clause (6), of the indian registration act. similarly, the right to recover property tax in bombay from private houses out of the income thereof is independent of the ownership of the ..... that would be offending against the covenants in the lease and not against the provisions of the law as contemplated by section 23 of the indian contract act.11. the learned counsel has however not rested his attack on that infirmity alone; for he has said that the combination of the plaintiff ..... raised before him in a different form. it was stated that the case of illegality wasbased on the provisions of section 23 of the indian contract act, the plea being that, inasmuch as under the terms of the kabulayat or lease from government an assignment was not permitted except with the ..... or extinguishment of the rights of the lessees of the tolls would not be compulsorily registrable under section 17, clause (i) (6), of the indian registration act.20. it is therefore needless to consider the other grounds of exemption from registration urged before us for the plaintiff, although, upon a superficial examination .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 1940 (PC)

The Central Talkies Circuit, Matunga, Vs. Re.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-07-1940

Reported in : [1941]9ITR44(Bom)

..... respect of the shares standing in the names of a wife and minor son of a partner. on that provision being made in the income-tax act, a new partnership deed july 14, 1937 was executed. the partners therein mentioned were mr. v. h. desai with 3 1/2 annas share, his mother ..... a conclusion against the applicant. under the circumstances it is not possible to say that there is no evidence for coming to the conclusion that the partnership agreement as put forth did not correctly represent the state of affairs and therefore, the reference fails.the order of the court was as follows :-order ..... last mentioned question has been specifically raised. it appears to me that if it is conceded that the commissioner has the power to inquire whether the partnership deed as put forth by the applicants is genuine or not, it does involve a consideration whether the share of an individual partner as mentioned therein ..... , is whether in the present case the commissioner was right in holding that there was evidence on which he could come to the conclusion that the partnership deed as put forth was not genuine. the contention involves the question whether the statement of shares of the individual partners as mentioned in the deed ..... to an order made by the honourable court in the matter of the civil application no. 872 of 1938 under section 66(3) of the indian income-tax act, xi of 1922, and the reference having been called on for hearing on october 4, instant and this day the said commissioner and the above .....

Tag this Judgment!


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