Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Year: 1999 Page 1 of about 203 results (0.088 seconds)

Jan 07 1999 (HC)

V.K. Kaliappa Gounder Sons Trading as Sun Beedi Traders Represented by ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-07-1999

Reported in : (1999)2MLJ413

..... v.k. kaliappa gounder issuing the notice under ex.a-16, announcing the retirement of the defendant v.k. subramaniam is neither an act authorised by the indian partnership act nor in adherence of the relevant provisions of law and the entries effected into the records maintained by the office of the registrar of ..... to note that such announcement made beyond the capacity of one partner as against the other partner by notice under section 63(1) of the indian partnership act, is simply accepted and carried out by the registrar of firms, without testifying the validity or legality of such a notice and without conducting any ..... have been given either by the retiring partner or by the other partners or by any other partners, as per section 32(4) of the indian partnership act. thus, the statutory requirements should have been scrupulously observed as far as the alleged retirement of the defendant on 31.3.1978 is concerned. ..... of the new firm.71. so far as the legal position regarding retirement of a partner is concerned, it is enshrined under section 32 of the indian partnership act as given below:section 32. retirement of a partner: (a) a partner may retire - (a) with the consent of all the other partners ..... 9. the defence case as set up by the defendant in the written statement is that, the plaintiff is not a registered firm under the indian partnership act; that this defendant was helping the father v.k. kaliappa gounder as his eldest son and improved the said business; that his father was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 08 1999 (HC)

Bapu Pillai and anr. Vs. Supdt. Engineer, Madurai Electricity System, ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-08-1999

Reported in : AIR1999Mad246

..... , the manufacturer of the transformer was impleaded as a party to the suit. according to the fourth defendant, the claim of the plaintiff was barred under section 69 of the indian partnership act and the fourth defendant was an unnecessary party. according to the fourth defendant the transformer was sold to madurai electricity system of the tamil nadu electricity board and the fourth ..... pleaded that there was no proper maintenance and that it was only due to the negligence of defendants 1 to 3. it is also pleaded that the accident was an act of god and therefore, the fourth defendant cannot be held liable. the fourth defendant also pleaded that they were unnecessary party, having been brought on record without proper notice and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 20 1999 (TRI)

Kalanidhi and anr. Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-20-1999

Reported in : (1999)(82)LC417Tri(Mum.)bai

..... unit.14. virtually the same line of argument has been taken by the second appellant m/s. colour prints who have mentioned, inter alia, that they were a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act since 21.9.1966 and shri gopal ram salian and shri k. ugappa malli were partners of the firm since its inception. apart from being registered by other ..... ), my views and orders in the matter are as follows.11. it is observed that the appellants m/s kalanidhi have mentioned, inter alia, that they were a partnership firm registered in the indian partnership act since 14.10.1972 and engaged in the manufacture of printed cartons, labels etc. shri gopal ram salian and smt. k. rajani ugappa malli are the partners of ..... other. in these circumstances, jdr contended that the adjudicating officer had rightly concluded that the separate registration for purposes of sales tax and income tax and separate registration of the partnership firms was only to camouflage the actual fact that both the entities were, in fact, one and the same. he referred to the recent decision of the tribunal step cosmetic ..... the department.the ld. advocate contended that m/s. kalanidhi and m/s. colour prints were separate and independent partnership firms. m/s. kalanidhi were registered under the income tax act, bombay sales tax act, central sales tax act and the shops and the establishment act and had separate bank account. m/s. colour prints were likewise holder of central excise licence for the manufacture .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 1999 (SC)

Gwalior Oil Mills Vs. Supreme Industries

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-21-1999

Reported in : JT1999(10)SC558; (1999)9SCC113

..... by the respondent, a plea was taken to the effect that the suit was liable to be dismissed in view of the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act, inasmuch as the newly-added partners' names were entered by the registrar of firms on 28-2-1978 and, therefore, on the day when the suit was ..... registered with the registrar of firms originally on 29-7-1953. with the passage of time, the firm was reconstituted and as required by section 63 of the partnership act, 1932, changes in the constitution of the partners was recorded with the registrar of firms. the said section requires notice to be given to the registrar whenever ..... are the disabilities of the person, whose name does not find a place in the register of firms. for the purpose of section 69(2-a), the partnership firm will mean the firm as found in the certificate of registration and the partners as found in the register of firms maintained as per rule in form ..... patel and arvind naranji patel were partners in their individual capacity but w.e.f. 1-1-1976, they joined as huf. after the reconstitution of the partnership firm on 23-8-1976, an application was filed by the appellant with the registrar of firms for noting the change in and the reconstituted firm.4. on ..... into existence w.e.f. 1-1-1976. in any case, the firm of m/s gwalior oil mills never ceased to be a registered partnership firm. the suit was filed by the firm in 1977 and the partner who filed the plaint, namely, arvind naranji patel was admittedly a partner .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 1999 (HC)

Avula Contractions Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad and Another Vs. Senior Divi ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-02-1999

Reported in : 1999(3)ALD105; 1999(3)ALT236

..... . in these circumstances, to import the definition of the word 'person' occurring in section 3(42) of the general clauses act, 1897, into section 4 of the indian partnership act will, according to lawyers, english or indian, be totally repugnant to the subject of partnership law as they know and understand it to be. it is in this view of the matter that it has been ..... consistently held in this country that a firm as such is not entitled to enter into partnership with another firm or individuals ..... has not given legal personality to a firm apart from the partners.....'15. in m. sitaram reddy v, indian railways : 1995(1)alt14 , a learned single judge of this court held :'... it is relevant to note, a partnership firm does not have a separate legal identity and every partner of the firm represents the firm.....'16. similarly, in margadarsi bore wells v ..... is based on english law and we have also adopted the notions of english lawyers as regards a partnership firm.'it was also held :'it is clear from the foregoing discussion that the law, english as well as indian, has, for some specific purposes, some of which are referred to above, relaxed its rigid notions and extended a limitedpersonality to a firm .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 1999 (TRI)

Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Associated Builders

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-05-1999

Reported in : (2000)72ITD273(Mum.)

..... at the time of dissolution only when there is no agreement or contract between the partners to the contrary, which is also the position recognised sky section 48 of the indian partnership act. therefore our decision is applicable equally to capital assets as well as stack-in-trade, provided there is a contract between the partners to value them at the time of ..... revenue authorities to discard the same and seek to tax the profit on the notional footing of the market price. in this connection the provisions of section 48 of the indian partnership act were also relied upon as also the order of the madras bench of the tribunal in ito v. preetham pipe syndicate [1993] 44 itd 665. as regards the existence of ..... the partners, the market value can be adopted for assessment purposes. in n. muhammad ussain sahib's case (supra) the question arose under section 48 of the partnership act. now section 48 of the partnership act provides for the mode of settlement of accounts between partners upon dissolution. the section provides for certain rules which are expressly stated to be subject to agreement by ..... absence of an agreement between the partners to the contrary, they can be valued on the basis of the market value at the time of dissolution. section 48 of the partnership act in fact clarifies or makes the position very clear.11. the other reason as to why it is difficult to understand the judgment of the supreme court as laying down .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 1999 (HC)

Salem Chit Funds and Financiers Association Represented by Its Secreta ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-05-1999

Reported in : 1999(1)CTC373; (1999)IIMLJ46

..... filed the above writ petition. 3. the respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that under powers delegated in section 71(1) and (2) of the indian partnership act, the government of tamil nadu in no.747 commercial taxes and religious endowments department dated 27.12.1990 have framed rule 3-a to prescribing a declaration ..... follows: ' annexure notificationin exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and (2) of section 71 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (central act ix of 1932) the governor of tamil nadu hereby makes the following rules to the tamil nadu partnership (registration of firms) rules 1932. the same having been previously published as required by sub-section (3) of section 71 ..... the case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: the members of the association consists of registered partnership firms and individuals, carrying on business in chit funds and financing in salem district. most of the members of the association are partnership firms. the partnership act does not prescribe or provide for the necessity of filing any declaration form by a registered firm, for ..... its continuance after the registration of such firm under section 59 of the act. under section 61, the firm has to send intimation to the registrar .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 1999 (HC)

Sham Sunder Vs. Hari Dev Bansal and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-18-1999

Reported in : (1999)122PLR509

..... in conjunction with the admission of dw1 and the case of the plaintiff. at this stage it will be appropriate to refer to the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932, hereinafter referred to as the act. section 22 of the act provides for the mode of doing act to bind the firm while section 28 relates to the doctrine of holding out as applicable to ..... applied with greater emphasis and more easily. while dealing with a partnership concern, a third party is not expected to verify the records of the partnership or from other concerned authorities as to who are the partners of partnership concern in the normal course of events.16. pollock & mulla by on the indian partnership act fifth edition by r.k. abichandani illustrates the application of this ..... principle as under:-'.....when persons are shown to have acted as partners, the burden of proof is on those who say they were not partners. this ..... from the conduct of the coparcener, who is estopped from denying the character he has assumed and on the faith of which third parties may be presumed to have acted. there being a partnership from the point of view of the general public, it follows that the persons dealing with it will not be affected by a dissolution of which no notice .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 1999 (HC)

Dharampal and Smt. Pushpa Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-25-1999

Reported in : 1999CriLJ3110

..... of the firm are not mentioned. the petitioners have brought on record a copy of the entry of the register under section 67 of the indian partnership act issued by the office of registrar of firms, a reading of which makes it clear that on 1-4-78 sri chand and dasu mai ..... checking.7. simply because ashok kumar, chhogamal and sunita have been discharged by the trial court, it cannot be presumed that the two petitioners constituted the partnership firm. the burden to establish that the petitioners were the partners of the firm m/s. narendra & co., udaipur, lay on the prosecution. the prosecution ..... p-15. mr. thakur pointing out that in the complaint it has nowhere been stated that the petitioners were incharge and were responsible to the partnership firm for the conduct of business urged that the proceedings against them are abuse of the process of the court and should be quashed.5. learned ..... was ordered that charges shall be framed against dharampal, pushpa devi and sri chand under section 146(1) read with section 3 of the e. c. act. however, by the subsequent order d/- 21-4-84 the trial court reversed its earlier order and discharged sri chand also. it is not understood, as ..... of the proceedings pending against them in the court of addl. chief judicial magistrate, udaipur under section 7 read with section 3 of the essential commodities act, 1955.2. the relevant facts of the case are these. shri khema ram vishnoi, enforcement inspector on 18-11-79 intercepted a tanker of kerosene .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 1999 (HC)

Seeniammal Alias Indirani Vs. Piramasankari Alias Kamalam and 7 Others

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-09-1999

Reported in : 1999(2)CTC13; (1999)IIMLJ440

..... body corporate, a charitable or religious institution or an unincorporate company or association or any firm as defined in the indian partnership act, 1932 (central act 9 of 1932)as per section 3(d) of act of 1980, the term:' 'debtor' means any person from whom any debt is due and whose annual household ..... property the entirety of the interest should be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether they are debtors within the meaning of the act (act 36 of 1972) is correct or not.'6. the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff/decree holder submitted that the reference made by the ..... '.'13. on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that if the original debtor father is entitled to the benefit of act 13 of 1980, the legal representatives are also entitled to the said benefits, but, when the original debtors is not entitled to, then his legal ..... . the question was whether the defendants are entitled to the benefit of the act.4. on consideration the learned single judge of this court, found that the decision of a single judge in lakshmi ammal and others v. sundaramurthy ..... defendants, the finding regarding execution of the decree was upheld. however, it was held that the defendants are entitled to the benefit of tamil nadu act 13 of 1980 as they constitute three different families. the plaintiff filed the second appeal, against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court .....

Tag this Judgment!

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