Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jan-14-1991
Reported in : (1999)IIILLJ1439Ker
..... ordervarghese kalliath, j. 1. petitioner is a firm registered under the indian partnership act. it carries business in textiles at kottayam. the firm has started business on march 12, 1960. there is no dispute that the petitioner firm is a registered firm.2. there ..... crucial facts, which are important for a final conclusion have not been considered, applying the correct law with regard to those facts. admittedly the four firms are registered under the partnership act. though a partnership is not considered to be a legal person, it has got almost all the trappings of a legal person. further in this case, the fact that the four ..... . in this case, there is no dispute that the four firms, in a way have got a separate and independent character insofar as by virtue of the registration under the partnership act, they can be considered as a separate entity. that vital aspect has not been properly dealt with in the order passed by the first respondent.7. i do not want ..... case. they are m/s. parthas textile, kayamkulam, m/s. parthas, trivandrum, m/s. parthas textiles, nagarcoil and m/s. parthas textiles, alleppey. these are also firms registered under the partnership act on july 7, 1975, november 17, 1976, september 1, 1978 and august 17, 1981 respectively.3. the question involved in this case is whether the four .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-01-1991
Reported in : AIR1992Mad227; (1991)IMLJ346
..... second respondent in support of his contention is ex.b8. ex.b8 is the certified copy of form a maintained by the registrar of firms under s. 59 of the indian partnership act relating to the firm raja theatres. ex. x1 is the original of ex.b8. ex.b2 is an application dated 1-3-1989 presented by one kumar to the registrar ..... as early as on 31-12-1978. the agreement as ex. b5 and the certified copy of form 'a' maintained by the registrar of firms under s. 59 of the indian partnership act marked as ex. b.8 in this case will go to show that the first respondent was not having any interest in the ..... there was no consent of all other partners for his retirement. as a result a notice in writing expressing his intention to the partnership act (sic). admittedly such a notice as contemplated in s. 32(1)(c) of the partnership act was not given by the first respondent to the other partners of the firm. in such circumstances, the case of the second respondent ..... /s. raja theatres. ex.a1 shows that the partnership m/s. theatres is a partnership at will. in the case of a partnership at will, a partner can retire from the partnership by giving notice in writing to the other partners as contemplated in s. 31(1)(c) of the partnership act. s. 32(1) of the partnership act provides that a partner may retire with the consent .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-01-1991
Reported in : ILR1991KAR3053; 199ITR588(KAR); 199ITR588(Karn)
..... ) of the schedule. there is another notification, viz., no. ii of the same date exempting the tax payable by any partner of a firm registered under the indian partnership act and engaged in any profession, trade, calling or employment specified in sl. nos. 5(b), 7(b), 13(a), 15(a), 20c(a) and 20e ..... to be noted. as per notification no. i dated may 3, 1989, the government of karnataka exempted the tax payable by any firm registered under the indian partnership act and engaged in any profession, trade, calling or employment, except those specified in sl. nos. 5(b), 7(b), 13(a), 15(a), 20c ..... tax specified under any of those entries shall be applicable in his case.'9. there is no dispute that the partnership firms of the petitioners are registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act. they are engaged in the business of finance and money-lending. according to the petitioners, the amount lent by ..... 15 of 1989, with effect from april 1, 1989. by virtue of this of this each partner of firm registered under the indian partnership act and engaged in any profession, trade, calling or employment is levied with an annual tax of rs. 500. this provision is challenged ..... the partners. registration is required only for certain limited purposes and non-registration affects the procedural rights of the partners, as per section 69 of the partnership act; even here, the firm or the partners may have the effect of non-registration removed, by getting it registered at the time of filling a .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-01-1991
Reported in : (1991)1MLJ346
..... in support of his contention is ex. b-8. ex. b-8 is the certified copy of form a maintained by the registrar of firms under section 59 of the indian partnership act relating to the firm raja theatres. ex. x-1 is the original of ex. b-8. ex. x-2 is an application dated 1.3.1979 presented by one kumar ..... as ex. b-1, the ledger entry marked as ex. b-5 and the certified copy of form 'a' maintained by the registrar of firms under section 59 of the indian partnership act marked as ex. b-8 in this case will go to show that the first respondent was not having any interest in the ..... and there was no consent of all other partners for his retirement. as a result a notice in writing expressing his intention to the partnership act. admittedly such a notice as contemplated in section 32(1)(c) of the partnership act was not given by the first respondent to the other partners of the firm. in such circumstances, the case of the second respondent ..... writing to the other partners as contemplated in section 32(1)(c) of the partnership act. section 32(1) of the partnership act provides that a partner may retire with the consent of all other partners and in accordance with the express agreement between the partners or where the partnership is at will by giving notice in writing to the other partners of his intention .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Feb-07-1991
Reported in : (1991)(33)ECC73
..... a firm cannot be a relative of another firm. he relied upon the following decisions :- 1. air 1948 p.c. 100 - bhagwanji morarji goculdas v. alembic chemical works co.:- the indian partnership act recognises that a firm may possess a personality distinct from the persons constituting it and the provisions of sections 22, 48 & 55 of the income tax ..... act also go to show that the technical view of the nature of a partnership in english or indian law cannot be taken to applying the law of income-tax. it is true that under the law of ..... that under that law, there is no dissolution of the firm by the mere incoming or outgoing of partners. the law with respect to retiring partners as enacted in the partnership act is to a certain extent a compromise between the strict doctrine of english common law which refuses to see anything in the firm but a collective name for individuals carrying ..... in law and in practice, when a firm has been treated as having a distinct personality from those of the partners. thus, partnership firm is a person or an entity having an independent and distinct existence liable for its acts. however, since we have already taken the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case, mutuality of interest between the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-11-1991
Reported in : (1991)96CTR(Kar)182; 192ITR525(KAR); 192ITR525(Karn)
..... a profession cannot be equated with such a meaning attributed to business. 7. learned counsel for the revenue first referred to section 4 of the partnership act to contend that the very constitution of a firm is to enable the carrying on of a business and, therefore, whenever a firm is ..... or make any contribution.' 14. the bench also pointed out that the law commission had also expressed itself against the earlier provision applying to a partnership between the husband and wife engaged in professions as doctors, lawyers, etc. however, the bench pointed out that, in the case of a couple ..... answer will cover questions nos. 1 and 3 also. 20. regarding the second question, the same is covered by the decision of the supreme court in indian and eastern newspaper society v. cit : 119itr996(sc) . the said question cannot be a basis for action under section 147(b). the said ..... rights of individuals will have to be read in the context of the indian constitution. the provision of law should not contravene the constitutional provisions like the fundamental rights. if a lady doctor runs a nursing home in partnership with another doctor (who is not her husband), then certainly section 64( ..... are barred from carrying on their respective professions on commercial lines. 11. the history of section 64 was also referred to. in the earlier indian income-tax act of 1922, the predecessor section was section 16(3). the said provision provided for including the in come of the wife of an individual arising .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-12-1991
Reported in : (1991)1MLJ421
..... per the certificate produced in this court, the actual registration was made and as mentioned in form-a which is maintained under section 59 of the indian partnership act, 1932, only on 16.2.1987. learned counsel for the plaintiff produced a zerox copy of the firm's registration certificate signed by the registrar ..... the suit filed by the appellant on the question of maintainability in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 69 of the partnership act by confirming the view taken by the trial court and the high court. the supreme court further held that though the plaint was amended on a ..... is not complied.the registration of the firm is a condition precedent to its right to institute a suit of the nature mentioned in section 69(2), partnership act. the registration after the institution of the suit cannot cure the defect of non-registration before the date of suit.in loon karan v. ivan e. ..... the petition is dismissed.learned judge was of the view that though a fresh suit to be filed after the firm is registered under the partnership act may not be a formal defect, learned judge permitted the parties to file a fresh suit. according to the learned judge even if the suit ..... contention cited a decision in arunagiri mudaliar in re. : air1936mad697 . the above suit was filed by the partners who have not been registered under the partnership act. learned judge held that subsequent suit filed by them after such registration, was not barred under order 23, rule 1(3), c.p.c. learned .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-20-1991
Reported in : (1991)99PLR666
..... of the firm m/s sugan textiles, the alleged tenant. could not withdraw the revision petition in view of section 19 of the partnership act. section 19(2) of the indian partnership act reads as under:-'in the absence of any usage or custom of trade to the contrary, the implied authority of a partner does not ..... the firm 'the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that in view of sub-clause (d) of section 19(2) of the partnership act, laksbmi narain having filed the previous revision petition on behalf of m/s sugan textiles was not competent to withdraw it since there were other ..... final no doubt, the appeal would be continuation of the original proceedings but when the question for consideration is regarding the competency of the person to act as landlord sad a question has to be decided if raised on evidence as to whether such a person would be covered under the defnition of ..... 2) of section is. i have given due consideration to these arguments but i do not find any force therein. under section 15 (2) of the act a power is given to the appellate authority for staying further proceedings in the matter pending decision of the appeal in the case of an order of ejectment ..... by the landlord during pendency of the ejectment proceedings as argued, the owner of the premises would cease to lie landlord and the authorities under the act would cease to have jurisdiction to order ejectment of the tenants. in support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the pull beach decision of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-01-1991
Reported in : 1991(21)DRJ53
..... him carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business.' the indian partnership act, 1932 : 'section 54. partners may, upon or in anticipation of the dissolution of the firm, make an agreement that some or all of ..... as the restraint was reasonable. section 54 of the partnership act removed the bar imposed by section 27 of the contract act. it does, however, appear to me that the plaintiffs themselves are not sure of their stand but let me set out the sections : indian contract act, 1872 : 'section 27. every agreement by ..... will not carry on a business similar to that of the firm. modification deed is no such agreement. again, thereforee, section 54 of the partnership act is inapplicable. section 55 is also not applicable. the firm competent builders had not been dissolved and no question of setting the accounts would arise ..... of competent builders 8 kms. clause was introduced in order to avoid confusion as well. there is no term as 'partial dissolution' under the partnership act. rather this terms appears to be misnomer and cannot best be applied in the case of a retiring partner. it cannot be applied when a ..... , illegality and was against public policy. i have already held that the clause is void under section 27 of the contract act and section 54 and 55 of the partnership act do not apply to the facts of the case. (19) traditional weighing of the factors in granting temporary injunction has been .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-09-1991
Reported in : AIR1993Guj41
..... different treatement has nexus with the object to be achieved. if an individual wants to do business in the land by forming a partnership, such partnership will be a 'person' as defined under the act. partnership as per the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 means the relationship between persons who have agreed to share the profits of business carried on by all or any. of ..... them acting for all. be it noted that the definition of the partnership as per the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 speaks of relationship between the persons and not between individuals. again such relation comes into existence by agreement with an object ..... to share profits of business. therefore, individuals/partners who want to carry on the business in the land and who forms partnership for this purpose cannot be ..... . 3. that one co-owner can without the consent of the other, transfer his interest, etc. to, a stranger. a partner cannot do this. 4. in a partnership each partner acts as a agent of the other. in a co-ownership one co-owner is not as such the agent, real or implied, of the other.' the observations made by the .....Tag this Judgment!