Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: recent Page 4 of about 37,611 results (0.105 seconds)

Apr 27 2017 (HC)

Monojit Das Vs. Sujit Roy Chowdhury and Anr.

Court : Kolkata

..... of the petitioner issued under section 43 of the indian partnership act, 1932; (vii) whether the respondents are liable to pay the ..... the respondent no.2 & 3 have carried on the business of partnership keeping him in the dark and have misappropriated partnership funds. he, treating the partnership as one at will, issued a notice on 22nd november, 2016 under section 43 of the indian partnership act, dissolving the partnership. the partnership agreements between the parties contain an arbitration clause, clause-36 which is ..... the respondents have done an illegality allegedly expelling the petitioner from the partnership firm; (v) whether the alleged expulsion of the petitioner from the firm is violative to clause 27 of the deed of partnership and section 33 of the indian partnership act, 1932; (vi) whether the partnership firm has been dissolved on delivery of notice dated 22.11.2016 ..... follows: 36. arbitration clause:- that in case of dispute arising between the partners regarding the partnership business as the same shall be referred to the arbitration as stipulated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 2017 (HC)

A.G. Sekaran Vs. M/s. Essaargee Fibro Industries and Others

Court : Chennai

..... 3 are not personally liable under the above said letter of promise, it could be see that the suit laid by the plaintiff is hit by section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932. accordingly, the substantial questions of law formulated in this second appeal are answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. in conclusion, the second appeal fails and ..... erstwhile partner of the first defendant firm and the same is also indicated in the letter of promise, the suit is maintainable and not barred under section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 and in this connection, he relied on the decision reported in(2004) 13 scc 358 (bhartesh chandra jain vs. shoiab ullah and others). however, as rightly put forth by ..... has given up the first defendant only to set at naught the rigour of the defence of maintainability of the suit raised by the defendants under section 69 of the indian partnerships act, 1932 by misusing the judicial process. 10. the plaintiff's counsel further contended that inasmuch as the plaintiff has sought the recovery of money in lieu of his capital, share ..... first defendant, without effecting consequential amendment of the plaint pleadings. when the defendants have in their written statement specifically pleaded that the suit is hit by section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the plaintiff on giving up his case as against the first defendant, should have given due notice of the same to all the defendants. the plaintiff seems to have .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 19 2016 (HC)

D. Balan Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... rights of the retiring partners in the firm were alone released and it can never be construed to be a conveyance deed. under the indian partnership act, 1932 all the properties are vested with the firm and they cannot be construed to be personal property of the individual partners. section 55.d(ii ..... the assistant executive engineer, madurai to value the properties for proper registration since the subject document is a release deed under section 55-c of the indian stamp act, 1899. when the order in appeal was passed, it was observed that the release deed has been executed under section 55.d(ii) for 3 ..... the value of three shares out of eight shares has to be calculated for the purpose of levying stamp duty under section 55-d of the indian stamp act, 1899. pursuant to the order of the first respondent, the second respondent had passed a revised order dated 31.07.2013 whereby the deficit ..... said document dated 23.10.2008 as a conveyance deed. aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had preferred an appeal under section 56(1) of the indian stamp act, 1899 before the first respondent. the said appeal was partly allowed on 10.05.2013 by setting aside the proceedings of the second respondent. however, ..... ) of the indian stamp act, 1899 deals with the release of right in favour of a partner, when such release is between the partners who are not family members. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 30 2016 (HC)

Pradeep Arora & Ors. Vs.samantha Kochhar

Court : Delhi

..... when the accounts of the firm showed consistent losses. (iv) the learned arbitrator committed a grave error of law by considering the case as one under section 37 of the indian partnership act, 1932 ( pa?) whereas the said provision was entirely inapplicable.9. countering the above submissions, ms. deepika v. marwaha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted as under: (i) this was ..... the assets of a partnership...11. the law laid down above would show that the interest of a partner in the ..... of 8....[a partner]. can get his share in the properties of the partnership only after the assets have been converted into money, and that too after the debts and liabilities have been paid and discharged. it is after the discharge that the residue is liable the partnership act enjoin this process being gone through before a partner can get his share in ..... . such disputes are to be resolved keeping in view the facts of each case having due regard to section 37 of the act. section 48 deals with the mode of settlement of accounts between the partners after dissolution of the partnership firm. 18. the court does not see the relevance of the above decision to the case in hand except to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 25 2016 (HC)

Rashmi Nagrath vs.m/s Sarva Priya House bldg.socy. Ltd

Court : Delhi

..... an oral partition had taken place of the property by the appellant.22. we may look at the legal position regarding an immovable property owned by a partnership firm. sections 14 and 15 of the indian partnership act reads as follows:-"14. the property of the firm. subject to contract between the partners, the property of the firm includes all property and rights and ..... individual [section 2(31)(i) or a body of individuals section 2(31)(v)].. firm?, partner? and partnership? have been defined in section 2(23) to have the same meaning as assigned to them in the indian partnership act, 1932.17. sections 14 and 15 of the indian partnership act, 1932 contemplate the owning of property by a firm. this includes the property originally brought in by ..... the property of the firm. it also noted that it is not in dispute that the property was acquired by the funds of the partnership firm. however, it framed a legal proposition based on section 15 of the indian partnership act, namely, as to whether the property which is not used exclusively for the purpose of business of the firm can be said to ..... be the property of the partnership. it noted that nothing was brought on record on behalf of the appellant either before the society or before the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 21 2016 (HC)

G. Sathyan Vs. B. Vasudevan and Another

Court : Chennai

..... memorandum of understanding by both the parties, directed the assets to be sold in auction between the partners after dissolution of the firm under sections 46 and 48 of the indian partnership act. therefore, the above contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is not sustainable and the said decision is also not applicable to the facts of this case. 19 ..... the business for six months till the prospective buyer is found out. the learned arbitrator after analysing the terms of the contract and the relevant provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 held that the partnership assets of only two partners stood dissolved on the retirement of one of the partners in the light of the legal and factual position stated therein. 10. the ..... and to settle the accounts of the firm between the parties in terms of sections 46 and 48 of the indian partnership act, 1932. the learned arbitrator has further ordered that the assets of the partnership firm is to be sold to the highest bidder in the auction to be held between the appellant and the first respondent and the successful bidder is permitted ..... . no doubt, interim order was passed in the o.p filed under section 34 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996, appointing a chartered engineer to value the assets of the partnership firm and he also filed the report, dated 24.06.2014. taking advantage of the interim order passed by the learned single judge and the .....

Tag this Judgment!

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!


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