Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: recent Court: andhra pradesh Year: 2002 Page 1 of about 36 results (0.047 seconds)

Dec 09 2002 (HC)

Choday Sanyasi Rao, Hpc Retail Outlet Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporat ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-09-2002

Reported in : 2003(1)ALD692; 2003(4)ALT359; 2003(3)ARBLR58(AP)

..... of 2002.3. the parties will be referred to by their status in the writ petition.4. the petitioner herein is a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 on 3.4.2002 and entered into an agreement with the respondent-corporation on 10.4.2002 to sell all its ..... clauses, mr. venktaramana would submit that the present firm entered into an agreement only on 10.4.2002 pursuant to the partnership deed entered into under the provisions of the partnership act and under these circumstances, the irregularities said to have been committed prior to the new agreement dated 10.4.2002 should not ..... parties. our attention was also drawn to the petrol/diesel dealership agreement dated 10.4.2002 entered into between hindustan petroleum corporation ltd., and the partnership firm in the name of m/s. choday sanyasi rao, under the said agreement, the corporation appointed the writ petitioner as dealer for the retail ..... case that the present violation being the fist violation since 10.4.2002, the cancellation of dealership is untenable. he also invited our attention to partnership deed dated 1.7.2001 which was entered into between choday sanyasi rao and chodya jankimmayya chowdary. it appears that the said parties had previously ..... can be gone into in the proceedings under article 226 of the constitution. it is submitted further that the new partnership was given effect to on 1.4.2001 and both the offences dated 17.1.2002 and 28.8.2002 are subsequent to the commencement .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 20 2002 (HC)

V. Srisailam Vs. V. Krishna Murthy and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-20-2002

Reported in : 2003(1)ALD500

..... be held that the family was joint family and it was owning joint family properties. according to the learned counsel, as per section 16 of the indian partnership act, any profits earned by all the partners in other firms should be shared by all of them and, therefore, no partner should treat the monies ..... 468 and o.s. no. 73 of 1983 shall stand remitted to the trial court for proper adjudication, having regard to the provisions of the partnership act, 1932. the trial court shall dispose of the matter within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment ..... suits. in a suit for dissolution of the firm, the plaintiff has to plead and prove the grounds adumbrated in section 44 of the partnership act, 1932. if the partnership is at will, the plaintiff is required to issue a notice of dissolution. the trial court ought to have given its finding on ..... testament of the testator. when the will is registered and it is validly proved by examining attestors as per the provisions of the indian evidence act and the indian succession act, the court should accept the will. if any suspicious circumstances are pleaded in a given case where the propounder has taken active part ..... insist on proof with mathematical certainty. the test of satisfaction of prudent mind in such matters would apply.ii. since section 63 of the indian succession act requires a will to be attested, the same cannot be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least is examined for proving execution as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 22 2002 (HC)

A. Gopala Reddi Vs. E. Jayarami Reddi (Died) by Lrs.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-22-2002

Reported in : 2003(2)ALD112

..... over to the first defendant on 19-4-1979 and a deed of partnership was drawn on 26-4-1979 which was registered in accordance with the indian partnership act, 1932 ('the act' for brevity). the following acts of commission and omission and acts of mistrust were done by the first defendant who was at the helm ..... of affairs in the partnership. the first defendant tried to knock away the enterprise with all ..... as those other than at will; but there are no limitations in this provision confining its operation only to partnerships other than those at will. sub-section (1) of section 43 of the partnership act does not say what will be the date from which the firm will be deemed to be dissolved.............. ..... including clauses (c) and (d). therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that when the ingredients of section 44 of the act attract in a suit for dissolution of partnership other than at will, it can only be from the date when the trial court records its finding that it is not ..... that he should be given his share in the assets and discharged from the liabilities. in a suit for dissolution of a partnership for fixed duration, section 43 of the act ex facie is not applicable. the heading of section 43makes it clear and it cannot be ignored. further, sub-section (2 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 09 2002 (HC)

Godavarthi Veeralakshmi and ors. Vs. Sangi Ramaraju and Co.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-09-2002

Reported in : I(2003)BC552

..... 2 to 4. the averments, in brief, in the written statement of 1st appellant are, respondent is put to proof that it is a firm registered under the provisions of indian partnership act and is entitled to sue on the promissory note and has to prove thather husband suryanarayana after borrowing rs. 20,000/- from the respondent, executed the promissory note dated 14 ..... first appellant examined herself as d.w. 1 and marked exs. b1 to b4. the learned trial judge held that the respondent is a firm registered under the provisions of indian partnership act and that the suit promissory note is true, valid and is supported by consideration and the debt was contracted by suryanarayana for legal necessity and for the benefit of the ..... the managing partner of the respondent firm. ex. a6 certificate of registration issued by the registrar of firms shows that respondent is a firm registered under the provisions of the partnership act. since the first appellant as d.w. 1 did not dispute the fact that p.w. 1 is the managing partner of the respondent firm and since ex. a6 shows ..... respondent is a firm registered under the provisions of the partnership act, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding on issue no. 1 recorded by the trial court.6. the evidence of p.ws. 2 and 3 read with pw1 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 25 2002 (HC)

Agricultural Market Committee, Rajahmundry Vs. Venkata Bulimamba Rice ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jun-25-2002

Reported in : 2002(5)ALD87; 2003(6)ALT569

..... and defendant, as shown in the suit.2. the allegations in the plaint are as follows:'the plaintiff is a registered firm under the indian partnership act. it does business in paddy and rice at kadium the name and style of sri venkata bylimba rice mill. the defendant, which is agricultural ..... being interlinked, can be discussed together. pw1, one of the partners of the plaintiff firm, was examined and to show that it is a registered partnership firm, ex. ai was marked and this witness deposed that the plaintiff is doing business at kadium in rice and paddy and no doubt, he ..... dealing with the establishment of market area and facilities and conveniences not available on the date of notification under the maharashtra agricultural produce marketing (regulation) act, 1964, the apex court observed at paragraph no. 15 as follows;'it was also said that neither the gultekdi market nor the turbhe market ..... the then secretary, was examined as dw1. dw1 deposed that the defendant-market committee published the necessary notifications in the gazette as contemplated by the act and the notifications are marked as exs.bl to b4. this witness further deposed that the market committee purchased an extent of acs. 11- ..... this defendant is making all efforts to provide further facilities to the business people including the plaintiff. under sections 14 and 15 of the act, this defendant has to provide facilities to the business to the extent the funds are available. the plaintiff as well as other businessmen is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 18 2002 (HC)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Sakala Veera Bhadraiah and Co ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jun-18-2002

Reported in : I(2003)ACC118; 2004ACJ1987; 2002(5)ALT258

..... to pay the sum of rs. 2,07,394 towards costs.2. the suit was laid by the plaintiffs contending therein that the plaintiff no. 1 was a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act and was carrying on business in cotton and cottonseeds with a ginning and oil mill at nagulapadu, pedanandipadu mandal, ponnur dmc. plaintiff no. 2 is bank of baroda ..... he had distant relationship with s. veerabhadraiah, but in his cross-examination by appellants he admitted that he was married to the daughter of mrs. s. veerabhadraiah's sister. in indian social structure one's sister's son-in-law is not a distant relation by any stretch of imagination. since s. veerabhadraiah denied his close relationship with k. hanumantha rao ..... not sure as to the value of the property that he was seeking the insurance for. the plaintiffs-respondents have referred to the following judgments:indian trade & general ins. co. v. bhailal, : air1954bom148 ; svenska handelsbanken v. indian charge chrome, 1994 (1) alt 37; general assurance society ltd. v. chandmull jain, 1966 acj 267 (sc); p. packer v. v. khalid, : air1974ker121 and mina .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 18 2002 (HC)

Vattumalli Narayana Rao Vs. Medrarapu Krishna Rao and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jun-18-2002

Reported in : AIR2003AP46; 2002(5)ALD588; 2002(6)ALT528

..... the other partners of the firm also are liable. section 22 of the indian partnership act, deals with mode of doing act to bind firm, and section 28 of the said act deals with holding out. section 22 of the said act reads as follows:'in order to bind a firm, an act or instrument done or executed by a partner or other person on behalf of ..... the plaint are neither true nor the suit is maintainable under the law. the defendants 2 to 5 constituted partnership firm and contracted sri venkateswara rice and flour mill and carried on business. but it is not true that the 2nd defendant acted as managing partner of the firm. it is equally not true that the 2nd defendant borrowed rs. 15,000 ..... and decided together.13. the 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit on the strength of a promissory note stated to have been executed by the 2nd defendant in the suit acting as the managing partner of the 1st defendant firm. having borrowed a sum of rs. 15,000/- for the business of the 1st defendant firm on 21-9-1979 and ..... the firm while defendants 2 to 5 are its partners, doing rice and flour mill contract business under the name and style of the 1st defendant. the 2nd defendant is acting as the managing partner. the 2nd defendant for the purpose of the 1st defendant firm business, borrowed a sum of rs. 15,000 - from the plaintiff on 21-9-1979 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 2002 (HC)

Cit Vs. Suleman Khan and Mahaboob Khan Tobacco Exporters

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jun-06-2002

Reported in : [2002]123TAXMAN673(AP)

..... him as a partner; but it does not render a minor a competent and full partner. for that purpose, the law of partnership must be considered, apart from the definition in income tax act.section 30 of the indian partnership act clearly lays down that a minor cannot become a partner, though with the consent of the adult partners he may be admitted to ..... a benefit which would not have been available otherwise.7. the act has adopted the definitions of 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' given in the partnership act, 1932. section 2(23) of the act reads as follows :'(23) 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the indian partnership act, 1932 (9 of 1932); but the expression 'partner' shall also include any person who, ..... were below 20 excluding the minors who were only admitted to the benefits of the partnership as per section 30 of the partnership act. the tribunal affirmed the order of the appellate assistant commissioner. on reference, the karnataka high court held'under the provisions of the indian partnership act, a minor cannot be a partner because a minor is not competent to enter into ..... appeals to the tribunal under section 263. before the tribunal, on behalf of the assessee, it was contended that according to section 30 of the indian partnership act, a minor cannot be a partner although he may be admitted to the benefits of a partnership. it was also contended on behalf of the assessee that provisions of section 11(2) of the companies .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 2002 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Suleman Khan and Mahaboob Khan Tobacco ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jun-06-2002

Reported in : [2002]257ITR170(AP)

..... him as a partner; but it does not render a minor a competent and full partner. for that purpose, the law of partnership must be considered, apart from the definition in income-tax act.section 30 of the indian partnership act clearly lays down that a minor cannot become a partner, though with the consent of the adult partners he may be admitted to ..... the firm were below 20 excluding the minors who were only admitted to the benefits of the partnership as per section 30 of the partnership act. the tribunal affirmed the order of the aac. on reference, the karnataka high court held--'under the provisions of the indian partnership act, a minor cannot be a partner because a minor is not competent to enter into any ..... a benefit which would not have been available otherwise.7. the act has adopted the definitions of 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership1 given in the partnership act, 1932. section 2(23) of the act reads as follows:'(23) 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the indian partnership act, 1932 (9 of 1932); but the expression 'partner' shall also include any person who, ..... preferred appeals to the tribunal under section 263. before the tribunal, on behalf of the assessee, it was contended that according to section 30 of the indian partnership act, a minor cannot be a partner although he may be admitted to the benefits of a partnership. it was also contended on behalf of the assessee that provisions of section 11(2) of the companies .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 2002 (HC)

Sri Rama Krishna Commercial Corporation and ors. Vs. K.R. Janardhana G ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jun-06-2002

Reported in : 2003(6)ALT520

..... , intimation or notice recorded or noted therein.'in v. anjaneya v. m.g. brothers, : air1981ap250 it was held that section 68 of the indian partnership act does not exclude any mode otherwise than producing extract of register of firms by which a person can be established to be a partner of the firm ..... it can be safely concluded that the other defendants 3 to 5 also are the partners of the 1st defendanl firm. section 68 of the indian partnership act dealing with rules of evidence reads as follows:'(1) any statement, intimation or notice recorded or noted in the register of firms shall, as ..... this is a case of a creditor enforcing a claim against a firm. the learned counsel also would contend that section 68 of the indian partnership act will not operate as a bar for proving the fact otherwise. it was also contended that merely because the plaintiff/respondent had not produced ..... evidence of pw-1 and also dw-1. the learned counsel also had drawn my attention to the provisions of the indian partnership act in general and section 68 of the said act in particular.8. mr. potti venkata ramana rao, the learned counsel representing the respondent/ plaintiff with all vehemence had contended ..... and had well contested the matter and had invited the judgment. the learned counsel also had drawn my attention to section 92 of the indian evidence act which deals with exclusion of evidence of oral agreement. elaborating his submission son this aspect the learned counsel would maintain that except in ex. .....

Tag this Judgment!


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