Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 1952 Page 1 of about 45 results (0.078 seconds)

Mar 28 1952 (HC)

A.A. Khan and ors. Vs. Ameer Khan and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-28-1952

Reported in : AIR1952Kant131; AIR1952Mys131; ILR1951KAR486; (1953)31MysLJ103

..... has been held to belong to them together with interest thereon or a share of the profits, whichever they choose, in accordance with the principle of section 37 of the indian partnership act. that section provides: 'where any member of a firm has died or otherwise ceased to be a partner, and the surviving or continuing partners carry on the business of the ..... the present was therefore void and could not form the basis of a suit for dissolution and accounts. he has referred to some provisions of the indian partnership act and to some decided cases.the definition of partnership according to section 4 is that it 'is the relationship between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all ..... of h; nor could he, being a minor, enter into a contract with b to form a partnership. ii was observed in that case that there being no partnership in existence, the provisions of section 247 of the indian contract act (which corresponds to section 30 of the indian partnership act) could not be applied in his favour. in 'v. manic kavelu mudahar v. commr. of income ..... tax, mysore', 10 mys. l.j. 316 it has been observed that a minor cannot himself create a partnership and admit himself to the benefits of the same. in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 1952 (HC)

inderchand Hari Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and C.P. and Berar

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-04-1952

Reported in : AIR1952All706; [1952]22ITR108(All)

..... drew our attention to the difference between the definitions of the word 'business', as given in the indian partnership act and in the indian income-tax act. as we have already mentioned, 'business' under the indian partnership act is defined as including every trade, occupation and profession. under the indian income-tax act, 'business' has been defined to include any trade, commerce, or manufacture or any adventure or ..... its affairs. this continuous management of the affairs of the company was precisely the business of the assessee-firm which was one of the purposes of its formation under the indian partnership act. in this case, therefore, there was a continuity of the business of the firm.secondly, even a single venture can sometimes constitute the business of a firm or ..... or not.' in the case before us also, the assessee is not an individual but a juristic person which can be brought into existence only for purposes permissible under the indian partnership act. these purposes are therefore, a matter to be considered when deciding whether the firm is carrying on a business or not. rowlatt, j. in 'commrs. of inland revenue ..... other considerations.7. it appears to us that a very important and significant point that has to be considered is that the assessee is a firm constituted under the indian partnership act which limits the purposes for which a firm can be brought into existence. this is the consideration that weighed with the income-tax appellate tribunal for holding that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 09 1952 (HC)

Abdul Jabbar and ors. Vs. Audhesh Singh Ram Agyan Singh and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-09-1952

Reported in : AIR1954All310

..... of october, 1932. consequently, the appellants, whose claim is in respect of rights acquired after the 1st of october, 1932, are governed by the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act and this provision is clearly applicable to this case.7. learned counsel for the appellants referred us to several decisions of this court as well as of other high courts ..... to these creditors, abdul sattar and abdul jabbar, the question arose whether the claim of abdul sattar and abdul jabbar could be entertained in view of section 69 of the indian partnership act. the claim of abdul sattar and abdul jabbar was in respect of a 'sarkhat' executed in the year 1933, but before the 1st october 1933, by the landlord in favour ..... proof that the firm had ever been registered and that consequently the claim was barred under section 69 of the indian partnership act. the contention on behalf of the partners of the firm that they were protected under section 74(b) of the indian partnership act was rejected by the trial court on the ground that the right in respect of which the claim had been ..... the claim before the learned special judge accrued to the appellants before the commencement of the indian partnership act and consequently the legal proceedingor remedy in respect of their claim in the encumbered estates act case is not to be governed by the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act.the decision of this question depends on the interpretation of the words 'before the commencement .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 1952 (HC)

Bishan Chand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., Lucknow

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Sep-02-1952

Reported in : AIR1953All165; [1952]22ITR520(All)

..... profits tax act. in these acts a joint hindu family is treated as a unit for purposes of taxation.for the decision of the question, therefore, whether the assessee ..... were however, of the opinion that the question, whether a hindu undivided family could be a partner in a partnership firm, must depend on the provisions of the indian partnership act, and held that partnership was a result of a contract and only the karta or the adult members of the joint hindu family, who had entered into the agreement, could be deemed to ..... the question must depend on the interpretation of sections 7 and 8 of the excess profits tax act, without any reference to the indian partnership act or to the question whether a hindu undivided family as such can or cannot enter into a partnership. under the excess profits tax act if a hindu undivided family is carrying on business and has made profits, exceeding the standard ..... entering into the partnership the joint family property might be made liable for the debts of the partnership, just as the joint family would be entitled to the benefits thereof. that decision cannot be of any assistance in this case where the question has to be decided not in accordance with the indian partnership act but in accordance with the indian income-tax act or the excess .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 1952 (HC)

S. Ahmed Khan Vs. Turup Mohamed Hayat

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-28-1952

Reported in : AIR1953Kant4; AIR1953Mys4

..... no substance in the contention either that the suit is not maintainable in the form in which it is brought or that section 69(1) of the indian partnership act is a bar to it.9. in the result, this appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the learned district judge_ are set aside and ..... govinda rao next contends that the plaintiff's suit even on the basis of such a claim is barred under section 69(1) of the indian partnership act as has been held by the learned district judge. section 69(1) provides that no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by ..... paid the entire tax and sued the defendant for contribution. beaumont c.j. held that the language of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 69, partnership act, is wide enough to cover suits relating to a dissolved firm and sub-section (1) covers a suit by a plaintiff suing in respect of a right ..... liability after or at the time of the dissolution. the claim for payment was therefore construed in that case as based on the relationship of partnership and arising directly under the provisions of the partnership act. that case was followed by grille j. of the nagpur high court in -- 'chhotelal nanakram v. gopaldas gulabdas' . he held ..... he had paid on behalf of the defendant under section 70 or section 69 of the contract act. but as the case stood the plaintiff had to base his claim on the relationship arising out of the partnership and he could not therefore that case there was also no agreement relied on between .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 1952 (HC)

Ram Kumar Ramniwas of Nanpara Vs. Re.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Aug-29-1952

Reported in : [1952]22ITR474(All)

..... continue so long as the joint family continued to exist even though may come a time when a joint hindu family consists of only minors. the whole scheme of the indian partnership act goes against such conclusions.having, therefore, carefully considered this matter we are of the opinion that :-1. the hindu undivided family of ghanshyam das sunder lal, as a coparcenary unit ..... a contract each member of a joint hindu family would have the right to claim all the rights reserved to a partner under the indian partnership act and be liable for all the liabilities imposed on a partner under that act. if a joint hindu family as a unit distinct and separate from its members is deemed to be the partner then also this ..... act seeking registration of the instrument of partnership dated march 7, 1945, in which application the collective share of 3 1/5 annas of ..... das and sunder lal (two brothers constituting a hindu undivided family) in the deed of partnership dated march, 7, 1945, as partners of 3 1/5 as a coparcenary unit, without specification of their shares inter se, rendered the partnership inoperative and illegal within the meaning of section 4 of the indian partnership act.(2) whether the application under section 26a of the income-tax .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 1952 (TRI)

Mohanlal Hiralal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, C.P.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Nagpur

Decided on : Apr-24-1952

Reported in : 195222ITR448(Nag.)

..... of the appellate tribunal, that the share income from a firm carrying on trade is not income from business. under section 4 of the indian partnership act, partnership is a relation between persons who have agreed to share profits of a business carried on by them or by any of them ..... distinguishable on facts. this contention may be correct when an unregistered firm is a unit of assessment. the jaipur firm is not a unit of assessment under the indian act. the assessee, and not the jaipur firm of which he is a partner, was treated as a unit of assessment.12. it is next contended that ..... and the tribunal is always under the obligation to apply the appropriate law to the facts found by it. there is no provision either in the indian income-tax act or in the rules framed by the tribunal to warrant a contrary view.16. under section 66(1) the assessee can require the appellate tribunal to ..... 7,226 arising from the jaipur firm can be set off against the profits accruing to the assessee in british india, under section 24(1) of the indian income-tax act ?" by an order dated january 31, 1950, it was held by us that on the statement of the case the question referred should have been :- ..... acting for all; persons who have entered into partnership with one another are called individually "partners" and collectively "a firm" and the name under which their business is carried on is called the " .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 28 1952 (HC)

Saligram Rai Chunilal Bahadur and Co. Vs. Abdul Gani and ors.

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : May-28-1952

..... concerned in suits for eviction based on tenancy, are the lessor and the lessee. a firm is an entity recognised by the indian partnership act. in section 4 of the act, 'partnership' is defined as 'the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or ..... plaintiff firm was the lessor. the defendants further contended that the suit was barred by reason of the provisions of section 59, indian partnership act read with section 58 of the same act. they also denied that they received any notice of eviction.4. on the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues: ..... any of them acting for all'. 'persons who have entered into partnership with one another are called individually 'partners' and collectively 'a firm', and the name under which their business is carried ..... debarred from entering into a contract of lease. if they do, then they are the landlords and the firm is the lessor,--each partner acting as the agent of the other in law. it is not necessary that the identity of the partners should be disclosed either in the notice ..... disputed is that the defendants did not receive the letter but this is belied by the acknowledgment filed. moreover, in virtue of section 27, general clauses act, the presumption is that, when a letter is properly addressed, prepaid and posted by registered post, and it contains the document, namely, the notice .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 19 1952 (HC)

Director of Consumer Goods and anr. Vs. Roy Brothers

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Dec-19-1952

Reported in : AIR1954Cal159,57CWN790

..... 226 of the constitution.2. the facts which are material for the purpose of this appeal may be briefly stated as follows: the respondent is a firm registered under the indian partnership act and carries on the business of manufacture of an adhesive substance known as p. b. clay which is intended for use in building works. the respondent has been carrying on ..... maintainable. in order to test the validity of this contention we have to examine the provisions of the relevant statutes.6 section 3 of the west bengal cement control act (west bengal act xxvi of 1948) authorises the state government by order in the official gazette to provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply & distribution of cement & trade and commerce therein ..... quantity of cement not exceeding 10 per cent is required for its manufacture.under the west bengal cement control ordinance which was replaced by the west bengal cement control act, (west bengal act xxvi of 1948), cement became a controlled commodity from 1948 and it became impossible for the respondent to acquire or buy or deal in cement except under a permit ..... it was equally incumbent upon the appellants before us to forbear from withholding any licence or permit or order. the respondent further alleged in the petition that the authorities concerned acted mala fide, arbitrarily and unlawfully in withholding the permit and were influenced by the fact that the political predilections of the partners of the respondent were disagreeable to them.4 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 09 1952 (HC)

R. Hanumanthappa and Son Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-09-1952

Reported in : AIR1953Mad209; [1952]22ITR364(Mad); (1952)2MLJ742

..... early as 20-3-1940 under section 58(1), mysore partnership act, before the registrar of mysore and therefore no question of its genuineness arises. apparently, this document was executed after the mysore companies act came into force which contains similar provisions regarding managing agency agreement as the indian companies act in which the amendments were introduced in 1936. as the ..... of his birth and therefore we are unable to state whether this boy was in existence on the date on which the managing agency agreement was entered into.under the indian companies act, as interpreted by this court in -- 'murugappa chetti. and sons. v. commr. of income-tax, madras', : [1952]21itr311(mad) a joint family as such cannot enter ..... deed of partnership makes it clear that the income earned by these two ..... assessment which is now under consideration is long after the date of this partnership deed, whatever the position might have been before 1940, this .....

Tag this Judgment!

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