Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: recent Page 2 of about 35,959 results (0.111 seconds)

Oct 18 2016 (HC)

V.K.S. Transport Vs. The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Sup ...

Court : Chennai

..... and on 10.12.2014, one of the partners, i.e., s.dinesh babu had retired from the partnership and as such, there were two partners. but no registration or renewal of the said partnership firm had taken place. under section 63 of the indian partnership act, 1932, it is provided that, when a change occurs in the constitution of a registered firm any incoming ..... dated 22.6.2007 and 6.7.2015 and the pan card which stood only in the name of the partnership firm. he pointed out that as per section 69a of the indian partnership act, 1932, it is not required that every time a new partner is inducted, fresh registration has to be applied and obtained, but suffice to send the intimation about the ..... existence at the earliest point of time and whether the same continued to be in existence from the year 2007 and that as per section 90 to 92 of the indian evidence act, an unregistered document cannot be allowed to assail the contents of the registered document and that as there was noncompliance of the terms of the tender by the appellant ..... 2007 would cease even if it is not renewed. he pointed out that subsequent changes in the constitution of the partnership firm will not any affect its registration in view of sections 58 and 59 of the act which clearly provide that a partnership firm once registered, it stands registered permanently and if there is any change in the partners, the same does .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 18 2016 (SC)

Vatsala Shenoy Vs. Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... the profits of the firm and they are placed in the same position as the tenants in common and for the purpose of dissolution and u/s 47 of the indian partnership act, 1932, it is clear that even after the dissolution of the firm, the authority of each partner to bind the firm and the other mutual rights and obligations of the ..... already noticed that the firm was dissolved on december 06, 1987 by afflux of time. this event happened as per the terms stipulated in the partnership deed itself. the necessity for filing the petition under the companies act arose because of differences between the erstwhile partners that had erupted, pertaining to the affairs of the firm. no doubt, in the said petition ..... partners. thus, the 'transfer' of the assets triggered the provisions of section 45 of the act and making the capital gain subject to the payment of tax under the act. insofar as argument of the assessees that tax, if at all, should have been demanded from the partnership firm is concerned, we may only state that on the facts of this case that ..... december 23, 2010 in the appeals filed under section 260-a of the income tax act, 1961 (for short, the 'act') challenging certain aspects of assessments pertaining to the assessment year 1995-1996. in fact, as would be noticed hereinafter, all these assessees were partners of a partnership firm known as 'm/s. mangalore ganesh beedi works', which was sold to three other .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 2016 (HC)

National Engineering College, Thoodhukudi District Vs. The Member Secr ...

Court : Chennai

..... textile company was started with the name south india textiles and it sought for registration of the firm u/s.58[1] of the indian partnership act, 1932, and it was returned with a direction to delete the word india from the name of the firm as it is prohibited under the above ..... said act. a division bench of the andhra pradesh high court has taken note of section 58[3] of the indian partnership act, 1932, and held tht the said provision only says that a firm shall not contain any of ..... amounts to improper use within the meaning of section 3 of the emblems and names [prevention of improper use] act, 1950. 10. it is pertinent to point out at this juncture that the indian partnership firm act came into being in the year 1932 and after independence, the words under section 58[3] of the said ..... act have not been amended and therefore, the word india does not find place. insofar as the interpretation given to clause ..... filed by the respondent and would contend that in the year 2002, the respondent took a decision that no institution must bear the name national or indian in the name of the institution as these names are generally used for the government institutions and private institutions cannot be permitted to use the said .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 2016 (HC)

Textile connection Vs. Burlington's Exports

Court : Chennai

..... % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization in full. 2. the plaintiff is a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act, carrying on business in chennai. the first defendant is also a partnership firm dealing in export of textile garments. the defendants 2 to 5 are the partners of the first defendant firm. the plaintiff is ..... after the demise of his father c.p.nair. the registration though said to have happened on 08.09.1999, just prior to the filing of the suit, admittedly, the partnership deed is not marked. 16. according to the defendants, the suit itself is a speculative one. when the main dispute is only with regard to the debit notes alleged to ..... sister c.p.bindu and working partner k.v.mohanan are the other partners. though the plaintiff is a registered firm, no document before this court was filed. admittedly, the partnership deed is not marked. 15. it is not in dispute that all the transactions relating to the suit were only take care of by the said c.p.nair, who ..... first defendant and the plaintiff was utmost cordial, without any problem till the filing of the suit. admittedly, c.p.nair was the person administering and running the plaintiff's partnership firm. as for more than two decades, there was no issues with their business and business was being run on trust. in fact, the documents produced by both the parties .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 2016 (HC)

Hemantkumar Ptilokani and Others Vs. The State rep. by its the Deputy ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... been paying royalty to perumalappan (not to m/s.welcome match works) 19. when a partner dies, subject to any contract to the contrary, partnership is dissolved. section 42 of the indian partnership act, 1932 ( act ) provides for dissolution of partnership on occurrence of certain contingencies which includes death of the partner as one of those contingencies. plain reading of the section 42 would show that ..... , subject to the contract between the partners, a firm stands dissolved by death of a partner. however, in cases where the terms of the partnership deed are silent ..... the hon'ble supreme court has held in paragraph no.5 as follows; it seems to us that looking to the scheme of the indian act no other view can reasonably be taken. the whole concept of partnership is to embark upon a joint venture and for that purpose to bring in as capital money or even property including immovable property. once that ..... under which, the ownership's right has been given to the sons of perumalappan. perumalappan died on 07.10.2004. since then, the partnership firm m/s.welcom match works did not function. the license under the arms act, which was in the name of s.k.perumalappan was not renewed. there were no filing of income tax returns and sales tax .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 2016 (HC)

Mahender Kumar Gupta Vs. Nand Kishoreji Goel and Others

Court : Chennai

..... on under the partnership deed.'' 7. a perusal of the aforesaid observation shows that in the given facts of that case, a retired partner wishing to move ..... a minimum of two partners to constitute a partnership. hence, by exit of one or two partners, the partnership does not come to an end automatically. however, if any one of the partners wishes to go for a dissolution, the provisions that guide such exercise would be one as outlined under the indian partnership act and certainly not by virtue of what has been agreed ..... .'' 4. the opposition to the petition is only by the 4th respondent, though no reply has been brought on record. learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that the partnership cannot be dissolved as a consequence of death or retirement of partners in ..... notice for dissolution of partnership dated 26.09.2015. 3. the partnership deed contains the arbitration clause-21, which reads as under: ''21. in case of dispute(s) that could not be settled in the manner explained in the forgone clause, the same shall be referred to artbitration and the proceedings of the arbitration shall be under the indian arbitration act, then in force .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 2016 (HC)

M/s. Otoklin Global Business, A Partnership Firm and Others Vs. The St ...

Court : Mumbai

..... jhaveri were the directors of respondent no.3. 8. the petitioners have set out as to how after formation of petitioner no.1-firm in 1997, the registration under the indian partnership act, 1932 was obtained. they have also explained as to how the registration under various other laws, which is necessary for carrying on business, came to be obtained. the petitioners ..... the same be quashed and set aside. this relief is sought in the following facts and circumstances. 3. the first petitioner before us is claiming to be a partnership firm, registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. it is engaged in the business of manufacturing various kinds of filters and filtration system used for industrial purposes. it is stated that the firm operates from ..... stated that these premises are in the possession of the petitioners prior to 1998. the third respondent to this writ petition is a company incorporated under the provisions of the indian companies act, 1956 and in the business as above, so also of pipe coating from a factory at midc, taloja, district thane and in the state of gujarat. 5. the ..... of tenancy prior to 1998. the certificate issued by the sales tax officer, sales tax notice, profession tax certificate, the certificate of registration issued under the bombay shops and establishment act, the certificate of importer-exporter code from ministry of commerce and some correspondence with the municipal corporation of greater bombay are relied upon, but these, to our mind, would .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 29 2016 (SC)

M/S Umesh Goel Vs. Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Group Housing Society ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... judgment fakkir mohamed ibrahim kalifulla, j.an interesting but very important legal question arises for consideration in this appeal relating to interpretation of section 69(3) of the indian partnership act with reference to its applicability to arbitral proceedings. the facts are not in controversy which can be briefly stated as under: the respondent which is a cooperative group ..... respect of a right under a contract governed by the provisions of the indian partnership act, especially after the coming into force of the 1996 act and the proceedings governed by the special features contained in the said act. therefore, any interpretation made under the limitation act while construing section 14 to treat arbitral proceedings on par with civil proceedings ..... with the suit arise and not otherwise. under the partnership act, the expression court is not defined. in section 2(e) of the said act though it is stated that the expressions used but not defined, the definition in the indian contract act, 1872 can be applied, in the contract act also there is no specific definition set out for the ..... appellant as well the respondent and having bestowed our serious consideration to the respective submissions, the various decisions relied upon and the provisions contained in the partnership act, the interest act, civil procedure code and arbitration act, we are of the view that the submissions of mr. dhruv mehta, learned senior counsel for the appellant merit acceptance. to appreciate the respective .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 19 2016 (HC)

M/S. Arun Sign Service Vs. Trade Wings Limited

Court : Kolkata

..... plaintiff. the material facts of the case are as follows. (2) the suit was filed on or about 19 may, 2009 by the plaintiff on record, being a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act, 1932, claiming a decree for rs.1,76,37,949/- against the defendant. (3) on or about 23 february, 2010 the applicant company being arun sign pvt.ltd ..... .was incorporated and a certificate of incorporation dated 23 february, 2010 was issued by the deputy registrar of companies, west bengal under the companies act, 1956. it would appear from ..... the memorandum of association of the applicant company that the main object of the company was to acquire and take over the partnership business of m/s.arun sign service being the plaintiff on record as a going concern together .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 2016 (HC)

N. Marappan and Another Vs. V.S.T. Sengottaian and Others

Court : Chennai

..... with the registrar of firms. though the defendants had taken a specific plea that the suit is not maintainable in view of the provision under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, the plaintiffs had not chosen to contend that the said firm was registered with the registrar of firms nor did they produce any document showing the registration of the firm ..... property of v.s.thangavel is wrong? (2) whether the suit is barred by res judicata? (3) whether the suit is barred by section 69(1) and (2) of the indian partnership act, 1932? (4) whether the suit as framed is not maintainable and whether the suit has not been properly valued ? whether the court fee paid is not correct? (5) whether the ..... . the firm marappan commercial complex is not a registered firm. hence the suit for declaration about the validity of the dissolution is not maintainable under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932. the suit has not been properly valued and proper court fee has not been paid. mutation of the names effected by the plaintiffs in respect of the plaintiffs was ..... has not been registered, the suit for declaration that the dissolution deed is not valid is not maintainable and the same is barred by section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932. instead of seeking declaration of their title in respect of the immovable property in which case they have to pay court fee on the ad valorem value of the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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