Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: recent Court: andhra pradesh Page 1 of about 661 results (0.079 seconds)

Nov 04 2015 (HC)

A. Sai Siva Jyothi and Others Vs. The State of Telangana rep. by its P ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

..... partners other than a-2 and a-1 entity and as to any liability of other partners, but for to govern by the provisions of the indian partnership act so far as the civil liability concerned. no doubt, the agreement among 24 clauses, clause 7 speaks that the borrower and surety/guarantors hereby confirms ..... is the contention of the counsel for the complainant/respondent no.2 herein to the quash petition that under section 25 of the indian partnership act, the liability of a partner for the acts of a-1 firm is joint and several and it extends even to the criminal liability. same is untenable as it is ..... tamilnadu dated 18.07.2012 in the name of a-1 entity. the loan agreement mentions it was executed at hyderabad between a-1 entity and partnership firm represented by its managing director and producer sri a.manohar prasad (a-2), known as borrower and m.p.ravi shankar prasad and kiran parvathaneni ..... at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under section 420 ipc. 10. the other decision is r.kalyani v. janak c.mehta (2009)1 scc 516)in saying vicarious liability can be fastened only by ..... to whether on the facts disclosed in the petition of complaint any criminal offence whatsoever is made out much less offences under sections 420/120-b ipc. the only allegation in the complaint petition against the accused persons is that they assured the complainant that when they receive the insurance claim amounting .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 31 2014 (HC)

S.La Vs. M/S Reliance Builders, Hyderabad and Oth

Court : Andhra Pradesh

..... regn.no.659/89, the petitioner herein is not admittedly a partner and that firm has not been dissolved in terms of section 63 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (for short the partnership act), that the firm bearing regn.no.4680/92 is constituted for specific purpose and for developing only one property, , that the o.p. ..... between the trading public and firm. to show that the second firm is reconstituted, the proceedings of the registrar in terms of section 63 of the partnership act have not been filed by the petitioner. when the petitioner prima facie fails to prove that the second firm was reconstituted in pursuance of first firm in ..... firm was dissolved or changed, a person specifically authorized by the firm should give a notice to the registrar of such change of dissolution. section 63 of the partnership act reads as follows:63. recording of changes in and dissolution of a firm:- (1) when a change occurs in the constitution of a registered firm any ..... new business as it was duly wound up after settlement of accounts, discharge of liabilities and distribution of all its assets in accordance with section 48 of the partnership act. hence, the o.p.4. respondents 1, 2, 4 to 6 and 11 and 12 herein (petitioners in i.a.) filed the above i.a. ..... court in that case did not answer that question finally but prima facie felt that the objection based on section 69 (3) of the partnership act may not stand in the way of a party to an arbitration agreement moving the court under section 9 of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 10 2013 (HC)

Smt. Bommidipati Madha Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by Publi

Court : Andhra Pradesh

..... of firm would also discloses that the registrar of firms, andhra pradesh, acknowledges the receipt of the statement prescribed under section 58(1) of indian partnership act.13. at this stage, the learned counsel for the respondent objected for looking into the said document by contending that the plea taken by the ..... of registration of firms issued by the registrar of firms, dated 19.11.2007 establish that sri sai santhosh constructions was represented as a partnership firm in the year 2007 itself. therefore, there is no irregularity or illegality in petitioner issuing the cheque as an authorized signatory of the ..... by him, wherein the petitioner was portrayed as a sole proprietress of sai santosh constructions, it cannot, now, be contended that it is a partnership firm. since the issues involved herein are disputed questions of fact, he submits that the same have to be established during the course of trial ..... determination is whether the petitioner is a proprietress of a firm or a managing partner of a partnership firm?.10. before proceeding further, it would be relevant to extract section 138(c) of the act which reads as under:- provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless:- (c) ..... taken in sheoratan agarwal v. state of m.p.6, and clarifying judgment in anil hada v. indian acylic ltd7, held that for maintaining a prosecution under section 141 of the act, arraying of a company as an accused is imperative and other categories of offenders can only be brought .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 03 2013 (HC)

M/S.Rollon Steels, Khairtabad, Hyuderaba Vs. A.P.Transco Ltd.,(Formerl ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

..... who was no longer a partner of the firm, was shown as its representative. he submits that as per section 32 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (for short, 'the act').the obligation on the part of the erstwhile partners.ceases, on their retirement and that the respondent ought to have impleaded the existing ..... may retire,- (a) with the consent of all the other partners.(b) in accordance with an express agreement by the partners.or (c) where the partnership is at will, by giving notice in writing to all the other partners of his intention to retire. (2) a retiring partner may be discharged from ..... whether dw.1 established that he ceased to be the managing partner of the appellant's firm?. ii) assuming that dw.1 retired from the partnership, whether he can be held liable for the suit claim?. point no.(i):- the suit was filed for recovery of amount, which represented the cost ..... evidence on record, the trial court framed the following issues for consideration: 1) ".whether the managing partner of the defendant's firm retired from the partnership even before the filing of the suit?. 2) whether the defendant's managing partner is not a necessary party to the suit?. 3) whether k ..... was issued by the respondent inviting tenders for entrustment of work of conversion of steel billets into steel bars.the tender submitted by the appellant, a partnership firm, was accepted on 10.08.1982 and the contract was awarded. under the contract, the respondent would supply the billets and the appellant, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 2013 (HC)

Yousuf Andcompany, Rep. by Its Partner Vs. the Government Ofandhra Pra ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

..... a fresh lease on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. explanation to section 4 stated that for the purposes of act 15 of 1992, notwithstanding anything in the indian partnership act, 1932, the act of a lessee in entering into a partnership agreement or other cognate agreement for carrying on any activity whatsoever on the demised plot shall be deemed to be a violation ..... in w.a.741/1993). thus, in view of the said explanation to section 3 (which provides that where a lessee enters into a partnership agreement in respect of the demised plot, then notwithstanding anything in the indian partnership act, 1932, it shall also be deemed to be in violation of the conditions of the lease), the judgment of the civil court in o ..... common judgment dt.18.08.1994 in w.p.12180/1994 relying on explanation to section 4 in act 15 of 1992 (which stated that where a lessee enters into a partnership agreement in respect of the demised plot, then notwithstanding anything in the indian partnership act, 1932, they shall also be deemed to be in violation of the conditions of the lease).74. the ..... of 1992 (as amended) which treated such assignment as a violation of the conditions of the lease notwithstanding anything contained in the indian partnership act, 1932 (vide goa glass fibre limited v. state of goa and another8) and therefore the respondents are entitled to take into account the conduct of petitioner by 1984 as a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 2013 (HC)

K.Kotaoah and Others Vs. Koganti Siva Pras

Court : Andhra Pradesh

..... is not a case where any amount is payable under a contract or other legal obligations to contract the provisions under section 69 of the indian partnership act (for short, 'the act'). the evidence of the 2nd defendant clearly goes to show that he has consciously executed all the documents and the income tax return also ..... the other defendants?. 2) whether the suit is bad for want of registration of the 1st defendant firm and not maintainable under section 69 of the indian partnership act?.9. points: though the 2nd defendant has raised several contentions in the written statement, in his evidence he admits the execution of the agreement. ex ..... and there is no material as to what is the difference of a registration of a firm for the purpose of income tax or under the partnership act. in fact, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants also even if to be accepted that the 1st defendant firm is not ..... is not a registered one though the plaintiff failed to produce the particulars of the registration or the particulars of the persons in whose name the partnership was recorded.11. so far as the consideration is concerned, ex.a.12 though a deed of dissolution clearly shows that there was an undertaking ..... on 12.01.1979, accounts between partners were looked into and an amount of rs.76,553/- became due to the plaintiff from the dissolved partnership by the date or dissolution. an amount of rs.26,553/- was adjusted to the plaintiff on that day either by payment in cash or by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 16 2012 (HC)

M/S. Pbr Select Infra Projects, Represented by Its Partner P. Bhaskar ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

..... is a representative of the other partners; and that each of the partners is an agent and a principal. on a thorough analysis of the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 (for short the partnership act) with reference to the decided case law, this court has nullified the action of the a.p. transco in that case in disqualifying the petitioner therein by not ..... showing his turnover, financial capacity and other requirements as prescribed by the tender conditions. in my considered opinion, the fiction introduced in section 184 of the act, whereby a legal status is conferred on a partnership firm, cannot be extended to destroy the legal relationship between the partners and the firm. such a water-tight compartment can be presumed only when the ..... the extent it is relevant for the present purpose, reads as under: a firm shall be assessed as a firm for the purposes of this act, if (i) the partnership is evidenced by an instrument; and (ii) the individual shares of the partners are specified in that instrument. as rightly submitted by the learned senior counsel, for the limited purpose ..... of which he is only a managing partner. the learned senior counsel further submitted that for the purpose of income tax act, 1961 (for short "the act") a partnership firm has a separate legal existence by virtue of section 184 thereof and that therefore respondent no.3 who has filed his tender in his individual capacity, cannot file the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 16 2012 (HC)

M/S. Pbr Select Infra Projects,represent Vs. the Commissioner of Tende ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

hon'ble sri justice c.v. nagarjuna reddy w.p.no.19517 o 16. 10-2012 m/s. pbr select infra projects,represented by its partner p. bhaskar reddy the commissioner of tenders,hyderabad and another head note: counsel for petitioner : sri c.v. mohan reddy for sri p. ananth nageswar rao counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 : government pleader for irrigation and command area development counsel for respondent no.3 : sri vemulapalli prasad rao ?cases referred:1. 2008(1) alt 71.2. (1990) 2 scc 48.3. air 197.s.c.

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 03 2012 (HC)

Chalasani Venkateswara Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-iv

Court : Andhra Pradesh

..... thereafter, disputes arose between the partners of the firm. the appellant sent a notice dated 07-03-1979 dissolving the partnership firm. as per section 43 of the partnership act, 1932, where the partnership is at will, the firm stands dissolved by any partner giving notice in writing of his intention to dissolve the firm ..... written submissions on 04-02-2000 specifically contending that any arrangement between the partners relating to the distribution of the assets consequent on dissolution of the partnership is not an income and not liable to tax as capital gains. he cited c.i.t vs. dewas cine corporation (1968) 068 i. ..... passed by the trial court shall be deleted and in place of clauses (iii) and (iv) of the decree, the following clauses namely "(iii) the partnership property i.e. the cinema theatre, shall be put to auction between the parties herein and (iv) if for any reason this auction fails, proceeds distributed ..... . therefore, the partnership stood dissolved on 07-03-1979 which falls in the assessment year 1979-80. 3. the other ..... partner receives at the time of retirement from the firm, his share in the partnership assets either in cash or any other asset. it further held that for the purpose of section 45 of the i.t. act, no distinction can be drawn between an amount received by the partner on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 10 2012 (HC)

M/S. Raghava Constructions, Hyderabad Vs. M/S. Chitram Movies, Hyderab ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

..... extraordinary circumstances, against the judgment and decree passed in the suit instituted for specific performance of agreement of sale. 2. the plaintiff is a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act and so was the defendant. the defendant owned a house property situated at road no.17 of jubilee hills locality at hyderabad, standing on ..... title of the suit property cleared. the plaintiff is not very sure as to whether the defendant has cleared the outstanding loan amount to the south indian bank. it was not also very sure as to whether the defendant has cancelled an earlier agreement of sale entered by it with one sri k. ..... asserted that, it has obtained a demand draft in favour of south indian bank in a sum of rs.1,58,00,000/- on 06.01.2010, as desired by the defendant and he has also drawn a cheque ..... to 15 days, the token advance amount will be cancelled. according to the plaintiff, the house property in question was mortgaged earlier in favour of south indian bank by the defendant and the said bank raised a demand for payment of a sum of rs.1,58,00,000/-. therefore, the plaintiff has ..... upon us to clear off the loan taken from them and thus invoked the provisions of securitization and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest act, 2002. the said bank under notice dated 14.12.2009 demanded the respondent to handover the possession of the schedule mentioned property on the date .....

Tag this Judgment!


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