Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Year: 1960 Page 1 of about 129 results (0.114 seconds)

Jan 18 1960 (HC)

Kajaria Traders (India) Ltd. Vs. Foreign Import and Export Association

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-18-1960

Reported in : AIR1961Bom65; (1960)62BOMLR753

..... come up before me under clause 36 of the letters patent for the determination of the questions following:--'whether in view of the provisions contained in section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the present petition is maintainable and what provisions should be made for the costs of the parties to the petition.'there has been a difference of opinion between mr ..... ' used in section 69(3) cannot be construed so as to embrace an application made under section 8 of the indian arbitration act, 1940.17a. in the result, the question whether in view of the provisions contained in section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the present petition is maintainable, is answered in' the affirmative.18. as regards costs, there is no reason to ..... appointed by consent of all the parties. in my view, the right to make an application under section 8 of the arbitration act is not a right arising from a contract within the meaning of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932.6. the next point to be considered is whether an application under section 8 is covered by the words 'other proceeding ..... 8 provided there was no other impediment in doing so. mr. justice mudholkar considered that section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, constituted such an impediment. mr. justice naik was of the contrary opinion. sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, provide as follows:--'69(1). no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1960 (HC)

Abdul Gani Minor and ors. Vs. V.M. Periyaswami Chetty and Co.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-18-1960

Reported in : AIR1960Mad495; (1960)IIMLJ43

..... circumstances such as the position of the other partners of the firm in the business. it is therefore clear that under the limitation act the theory of an implied agency which underlies the conception of a partnership under the indian partnership act is by itself not sufficient to enable a partner to bind the other partners by an acknowledgment of a liability of the firm ..... that the creditor had notice of such a dissolution."that decision dealt with the provisions of ss. 261 and 264 of the indian contract act which subsisted before the indian partnership act. section 264 of the contract act did not contain the proviso now found in s. 45 of the partnership act. it cannot therefore be treated as an authority for deciding a case governed by the present ..... partnership act.(20) following 8 mad lj 261, we are of opinion that defendants 11 to 14 are not bound by the acknowledgment made by khader ..... to acknowledge a debt of the partnership is not one such act provided for under s. 19(2) of the partnership act. but in order to test the validity of an acknowledgment of a debt to conform, to the requirements of the limitation act one has to examine the relevant provisions of the said act. sec. 21(2) of the indian limitation act is as follows:"nothing in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 1960 (HC)

Kruthartha Acharya Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Feb-11-1960

Reported in : AIR1960Ori183

..... be either in existence or that may come into existence. in section 2 (6-b) of the income-tax act the position has been clarified by saying that the terms 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' have the same meanings respectively as in the indian partnership act provided that the expression 'partner' includes any person who being a minor has been admitted to the benefits of ..... partnership. hence, the limited question for consideration is whether the deed of partnership (ext. a) and the deed of rectification (ext. d) taken ..... together would show that the minor rakindranath was only admitted to the benefits of partnership or else ..... 26a of the indian income-tax act should have been granted to the firm as constituted by the said deed dated 25-7-1951 and the deed of rectification dated 20-2-1952, for any one or more of assessment years 1950-51, 1952-53 and 1953-54? 5. question no. (i): section 30(1) of the partnership act says that though .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 1960 (HC)

Krutartha Acharya Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and OrissA.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Feb-11-1960

Reported in : [1961]41ITR320(Orissa)

..... of partnership (exhibit a) and the deed of rectification (exhibit d) taken together ..... being a minor has been admitted to the benefits of partnership. hence, the limited question for consideration is whether the deed ..... assumes that independent of the minor, there must be a partnership that may be either in existence or that may come into existence. in section 2 (6b) of the income-tax act the position has been clarified by saying that the terms 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' have the same meanings respectively as in the indian partnership act provided that the expression 'partner' includes any person who .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 1960 (HC)

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Bayya Subba Rao and Company

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-11-1960

Reported in : [1960]11STC545(AP)

..... its business. 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 ..... the following statement of law contained in bhagwanji morarji v. alembic chemical works ltd. a.i.r. 1948 p.c. 100.: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 ..... narrow significance and not a wide one as is sought to be attributed to it.22. it is pertinent in this context to look at the definition of 'partnership' under the indian partnership act, 1932, also. section 4 of that act recites :'partnership' is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them ..... before their lordships of the supreme court in that case was whether a firm could enter into a partnership with another firm or a joint hindu family or an individual. this was answered in the negative for the reason that section 4 of the indian partnership act contemplates only natural or artificial persons and a firm is not a 'person.' their lordships expressed the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 1960 (HC)

Jullundur Vegetable Syndicate Vs. the Punjab State

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-14-1960

Reported in : AIR1962P& H248

..... even after dissolution of the firm and in the hands of the partners or otherwise. this conclusion was arrived at on a consideration of secs. 45 to 55 of the indian partnership act. one of the points urged before the learned judge was that the assessment order made on a firm after its dissolution was without jurisdiction, but there is no discussion of ..... exist for certain purposes, it would not at all follow that it can after dissolution be assessed to sales tax under the act in the absence of machinery provided in the act to that end. the principles enunciated in the indian partnership act cannot be imported into a taxing statute.(13) no authority of the supreme court directly bearing on the question referred to the ..... purposes of winding up its business, adjusting the rights of the partners inter se and payment of the debts due to the partnership or realising the debts owing to it. in this connection ss. 45 and 47 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (act no. ix of 1932), and motilal chimanram v. sarupchand prithiraj air 1937 bom 81 and chatubhuj durgardas factory v. dumodar jamnadas ..... air 1960 bom 424, were relied upon.it does not, however, follow that the liability to pay sales tax under the act, which the partnership firm had incurred before its dissolution, becomes .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 16 1960 (HC)

Mathu Varkey Vs. Pyli Varghese

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Feb-16-1960

Reported in : AIR1960Ker286

..... for decision, is whether the latter part of the decree can be sustained, under section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, which may be referred to hereafter as the act, section 69, sub-sections (1) and (2) of the act have created a bar to certain classes of suits relating to an unregistered firm; but sub-section (3) ..... order xx, rule 15 of the civil procedure code must be amended, so as to give effect to the restricted interpretation of section 69 (3) (a) of the act, which is a later enactment. they held, that even in a suit for the dissolution of a firm in this restricted sense, an account has to be ..... for the taking of accounts is implicit in the prayer for the dissolution of a firm, within the meaning of section 69 (3) (a) of the act.3. the only case which has taken a contrary view and to which our attention has been drawn, is magan bchari lal v. ram partap singh, air ..... dissolved firm' within the meaning of section 69 (3) (a) can be laid. it may perhaps be suggested, that the object underlying section 69 of the act was to impose a certain disability on unregistered firm, and this is true to a certain extent; but it is fallacious to argue, that the same object permeates ..... contain, has furnished a definition as to its scope and content, and it is difficult to hold, that while enacting section 69 (3) (a) of the act, the legislature did not have before its mind, this provision in the civil procedure code in a chapter dealing with decrees.the lahore high court has ruled in jhandu mal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 02 1960 (HC)

Walyti Ram Ram Ditta Mal Vs. Bhagwan Dass Rajinder Kumar

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-02-1960

Reported in : AIR1960P& H471

..... held vested in walaiti ram plaintiff. the suit was held to be maintainable in view of the provisions of s. 60(3)(a) of the indian partnership act.(6) the main controversy between the parties centers on the third issue. according to both the courts below, the transactions in question were agreement by way ..... firm was not a joint hindu family firm and the suit was not competent as the firm was not registered under s. 69 of the indian partnership act. the defendant also pleaded that the transaction was in the nature of a wagering agreement and was, therefore, void in view of the provisions of ..... lower appellate court and the test that he has applied for ascertaining what is a wagering agreement within the purview of s. 30 of the indian contract act is erroneous. a finding of fact suffering from these blemishes is not sacrosanct and cannot be sustained.(21) there is no cogent evidence on the ..... price. if it be so the contract, notwithstanding its form, is a wagering contract, and is void, being prohibited under s. 30 of the indian contract act.(20) after having carefully gone through the judgment of the learned additional district judge, the concurrent finding that the parties never intended any actual transfer of ..... s. 30 of the indian contract act. it was also alleged that the profit claimed by the plaintiff had not been realised by the defendant-firm from the persons with whom he .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 02 1960 (HC)

Buddulal Goerlal Mahajan Vs. Shrikisan Chandmal

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-02-1960

Reported in : AIR1961MP57

..... of jointness based on the evidence of shrikishan. thus, the defendant really gets nowhere to the stage of getting the benefit of section 69 of the indian partnership act. (iii) applicability of section 30 of the indian contract act.13. from the earliest stage of the dispute, the defendant has been thinking of this, as is apparent from his telegram of the 1st april, already ..... courts should take notice on their own. so far, the proposition cannot be seriously questioned; but before we reach the position calling for the application of section 60 of the indian partnership act, the defendant has to dislodge the plaintiffs from the position they have taken as hindu joint family, which can be only on the basis of a finding of fact. 12 ..... the defendant, it is argued here that the plaintiffs will have to prove either that they constitute a joint family, or show that they are a firm registered under the indian partnership act and produce a copy of the certificate and the entry in the books of the registrar of firms. this, it is contended, need not be expressly pleaded, as section 69 ..... shares of the hukumchand mills. the points for decision generally are (i) whether the plaintiffs are really a hindu joint family concern, or a joint venture amounting to partnership attracting section 69 of the indian partnership act; (ii) whether the indore court or the court at dhar has got territorial jurisdiction; (iii) whether these forward contracts are of the nature of wagering contracts under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 1960 (HC)

Mathura Datt Bhatt Vs. Prem Ballabh Khulba

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-03-1960

Reported in : AIR1961All19

..... whether a partner stands in a fiduciary capacity to the other partner or not.7. in this connection, we will first examine the relevant provisions of the indian partnership act (act ix) of 1932. the nature of 'partnership' there is defined by section 4 as being 'the relationship between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or ..... as a matter of law independently of the circumstances of any particular case. we think that this submission is too broadly made.19. from the examination of the partnership act, the trusts act and english, indian and american authorities cited hereinbefore, it would appear that it cannot be said that there is no fiduciary relationship between the partners, although on the basis of the ..... the partnership act. section 9 of the said act states that:--'partners are bound to carry on the business of the firm to the greatest common advantage, to be just and faithful to each other, and to render true accounts and full information of all things affecting the firm to any partner or his legal representative.'we will now refer to the indian trusts act ..... decision in 1894-1 ch. 343, one partner receiving assets of the partnership on account of himself and his co-partners is not liable as a person acting in a fiduciary .....

Tag this Judgment!


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