Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 1957 Page 1 of about 89 results (0.130 seconds)

Feb 28 1957 (HC)

Meka Venkatappaiah Vs. Additional Income Tax Officer

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-28-1957

Reported in : [1957]32ITR274(AP)

..... . '3. the aforesaid fasciculus of sections clearly indicates that, for the purpose of the income-tax act, an unregistered firm is a distinct assessable unit or assessable entity though, for the purpose of the indian partnership act, it is not a legal entity but only consists of individual partners for the time being. a ..... clear distinction is maintained between a firm and its partners. section 3 charges the income of every firm and the partners of the firm in accordance with or subject to the provisions of the act. ..... the members composing it for income-tax purposes and is recognised as a separate assessable unit under section 3 of the income-tax act. though according to the partnership act a partnership firm is not a single legal person, still for purposes of income-tax the firm is regarded as having a separate status ..... to income-tax' in the present case in so narrow a sense. it cannot be denied that when the income of a partnership is assessed to tax under the act what is really assessed is nothing less than the income of the individual partners and we think that to say that a person ..... distinct unit for purposes of assessment. sections 26, 48, and 55 of the act fully bear out this position. these provisions of the act go to show that the technical view of the nature of a partnership, under english law or indian law, cannot be taken in applying the law of income-tax. '8. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 22 1957 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gopal Rice Mills

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-22-1957

Reported in : AIR1958MP292; [1958]34ITR548(MP)

..... the membership of the firm which was challenging the decision of the high court before the supreme court was quite different.6. starting, therefore, with the conclusion that under the indian partnership act as well as the indian income-tax act there can be no recognition of a firm composed of an individual and firms, wehave to see whether in the present case the ..... court has laid down in dulichand laxminarayan v. commr. of income-tax, nagpur : [1956]29itr535(sc) (a), that no such partnership can be centered into under the indian partnership act and no registration is open to such a firm under the indian income-tax act. it is interesting that one of the partners in the firm which went before the supreme court is a partner in ..... order1. this is a reference under section 66 (1)of the indian income-tax act for the opinion orthis court on the following questions :1. whether on the true interpretation of the partnership dead dated 24th july, 1942, are the partners (1) narsingdas, (2) khubchand amarsingh, (3) ramanand sadaram, and (4) dulichand laxminarayan; or are the partners narsingdas and three other firms known ..... partnership is between an individual and three other firms. the application which has been made for renewal in 1950 discloses that the firms which seek to join narsingdas, the individual, consist .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 04 1957 (HC)

Dalichand V. Parekh Vs. Mathuradas Ravji and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-04-1957

Reported in : AIR1958Bom428; (1957)59BOMLR1066; ILR1958Bom218

..... issue now is whether the payment of rs. 2013-1-6 by way of set oif is binding on roy and co. under section 19 of the indian partnership act, an act of a partner which is done to carry on, in tbe usual way, business of the kind carried on by the firm, binds the firm, and ..... partners for a dissolution of the firm and for settling the accounts, the notice stating, inter alia, that the said other partners should not do any act on behalf of the partnership without his consent. on receipt of this notice, salarnatrai sent the manager of roy and co., one kanaiyalal, to the defendant at veraval for a ..... pointed out, this rule has also been accepted by american court. then follow observations which are material and they are:'the true principle is that as a partnership is formed for the common benefit of all the partners, every transaction ought legally to be a joint account and not for the exclusive benefit of one ..... or obligation of the firm in any form, the presumption of the law is that the partner gives this and the creditor receives it in fraud of the partnership; in other words, if a partner releases a debt due to his firm in consideration of a release to him of a debt due. by him solely ..... in baikunta nath's case (a) observed:'now a partner has no implied authority to discharge his private debts by set off against a debt due to the partnership; consequently, such a set off by one partner cannot prejudice his co-partners. to put the matter in another way, whenever a party received from any .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 1957 (HC)

Mansha Ram Vs. Tej Bhan

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-18-1957

Reported in : AIR1958P& H5

..... . faqir chand mital is, that on the proved and admitted facts of this case, the provisions of section 37 of the indian partnership act have no applicability. section 37 of the indian partnership act runs as under:--'where any member of a firm has died or otherwise ceased to be a partner, and the surviving or ..... the lower appellate court which were dismissed. he has again filed cross-objections in this court. the lower courts applying section 13(b) of the indian partnership act, have found that no contract has been proved according to which the share of the two partners in the profits and losses of their business ..... to account for these assets with interest thereon, apart from fraud or misconduct in the nature of fraud.'section 37 of the indian partnership act is modelled upon section 42 of the english partnership act 1890 which reads,42. (1) where any member of a firm has died or otherwise ceased to be a partner, and ..... three-fourths, and that of the plaintiff one-fourth, the profits and losses would in view of the provisions of section 13(b) of the indian partnership act, be shared equally and not in the ratio of three-fourths and one-fourth. the defendant's claim that he was entitled to interest at ..... the defendant in the firm, was three times more than that of plaintiff but in view of the provisions of section 13(b) of the indian partnership act, in the absence of the contract between the parties, the two partners mansa ram and tej bhan were entitled to share the profits and losses .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 12 1957 (HC)

Mohammad Abdul Sattar Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-12-1957

Reported in : 1958CriLJ1114

..... exhaustive on the law of partnership. however the law as it was in england as referred to above would not permit the criminal ..... based on the english act of 1890 and the codified law both in india and england is not ..... to be entrusted with partnership property or with dominion over it. the dictum in piddocke v. burt (1894) l oh 343 cd), that a partner receiving money belonging to the partnership on account of himself and his co-partner does not do so in a fiduciary capacity, represents the true position of a partner under the law of partnership.the indian partnership act of 1932 is ..... - partner.he is charged with an offence under section 409 ipc probably as an agent and not under section 406 ipc which is a general section. the law of partnership- is but a branch of the law of agency and section 18 of the partnership act provides that subject to the other provisions of the act a partner is an agent of the firm. but this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 25 1957 (HC)

J.K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Firm Birdhichand Sumermal

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Sep-25-1957

Reported in : AIR1958All176

..... a reference could not bind the other partner of the firm.seth gambhirmal pandiya, in effect, relied on the provisions of section 19 of the indian partnership act whereunder a partner was not deemed to have 'implied authority' to submit disputes relating to the business of the firm to arbitration.79. in order ..... the other partner in entering into the contract on the basis of which the suit has been brought was unauthorised under section 19 of the indian partnership act.34. but can the plaintiff deprive the partner who is not so bound by the action of his other partner of this defence simply by ..... a partner of the firm birdhi chand sumermal but pleaded that seth tikam chand had no authority under law as provided in article 19 of the indian partnership act to enter into an agreement of reference to arbitration on behalf of his other partners, the applicant, and as such there was no valid ..... firm for the purposes of the business of the partnership, vide section 18 of the indian partnership act. but this rule is, according to the section itself, subject to the other provisions of the act. one of these provisions is contained in section 19(2) of the act. sub-section (2) of section 19 recites what ..... grounds which do not concern the interpretation of order 21, rule 50. in respect of the objection based upon section 19(c) of the partnership act the learned judges rejected it on the grounds firstly that under the special powers given to the managing director vittal rao he could consent to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 17 1957 (SC)

Steel Brothers and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-17-1957

Reported in : AIR1958SC315; [1953]33ITR1(SC)

..... and circumstances of the case find their place in the referred question as framed and were also sought to be imported under section 6 of the indian partnership act, 1932, which provides : '6. mode of determining existence of partnership. - in determining whether a group of persons is or is not a firm, or whether a person is or is not a partner in a ..... the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all within the meaning of the definition of partnership given in section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932. even if the definition of partnership which was contained at the relevant date in section 239 of the indian contract act (ix of 1872) be taken into account, the relationship between the parties is ..... , and having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holing that the partnership was really between steels and ellermans and that, therefore, registration should have been allowed under section 26a of the indian income-tax act.' 10. the reference was heard by the high court and the high court answered the referred question in the ..... income-tax officer in such manner as may be prescribed.' 14. rule 2 of the indian income-tax rules, 1922, prescribes : 'any firm constituted under in instrument of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners may, under the provisions of section 26a of the indian income-tax act, 1922,..... such application shall be signed by all the partners (not being minors) personally, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1957 (HC)

V. Rangaswami Naidu Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-18-1957

Reported in : AIR1957Mad437

..... pointed out at page 460 (of itr). (at p. 368 of air):"when a partnership firm comes into existence it can be predicated of it that it carries on a business, because partnership, according to section 4 of the indian partnership act, is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business ..... carried on by all or any of them acting for all."therefore, where a partnership acquires a right of managing agency, it carries on, ..... ,00,000 received by the assessee during the year of account can be assessed to tax under the provisions of section 12-b of the indian income-tax act;and 2. whether the sum of rs. 1,00,000 was paid as a consideration for the transfer of capital asset or as a compensation ..... section 4 (3) (1). we are concerned in this case with the question, whether the assessee's shares in the partnership concerns constituted property within the meaning of section 2 (4-a) of the act. except for what has been excluded by section 2 (4-a) itself, the term 'property' has to be given ..... up what we have stated earlier, we hold that the share which the assessee had in each of the three partnership concerns was a capital asset within the meaning of section 2 (4-a) of the act.20. the next question is was there & sale, exchange or transfer of the assessee's capital as-sets .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1957 (HC)

V. Rangaswami Naidu Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-18-1957

Reported in : [1957]31ITR711(Mad)

..... hyderabad their lordships of the supreme court pointed out at page 480 :'when a partnership firm comes into existence it can be predicated of it that it carries on a business, because partnership, according to section 4 of the indian partnership act, is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a ..... business carried on by all or any of them acting for all.'therefore, where a partnership acquires a right of managing agency, it carries on ..... of section 4 (3) (i). we are concerned in this case with the question, whether the assessees shares in the partnership concerns constituted property within the meaning of section 2 (4a) of the act. except for what has been excluded by section 2 (4a) itself, the term, property, has to be given its ..... . 1,00,000 received by the assessee during the year of account can be assessed to tax under the provisions of section 12b of the indian income-tax act; and(2) whether the sum of rs. 1,00,000 was paid as a consideration for the transfer of capital asset or as a ..... what we have stated earlier, we hold that the share which the assessee had in each of the three partnership concerns was a capital asset within the meaning or season 2 (4a) of the act.the next question is was there a sale, exchange or transfer of the assessees capital assets. as we pointed .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 09 1957 (HC)

Nokhu and ors. Vs. Gokal and anr.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : May-09-1957

Reported in : AIR1957HP59

..... . the court below has refused to go into the question as to whether the suit was barred under the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act on the following two grounds:(a) the plaint did not disclose that the suit had been filed on behalf of a firm. (b) no ..... taken in the written statement that the suit was barred under section 69 of the indian partnership act. 3. learned counsel for the petitioners argued--and in my opinion with great justification--that the mandatory provisions of section 69, partnership act, could not be defeated on either of the above two grounds. reliance was placed ..... by the defendants for amendment of their pleadings. he further submitted that the application under section 9, civil p. c., read with section (69 of the partnership act was made by the defendants at a very late stage. inter alia, mr. hira lal vaidya cited the following authorities :- (i) goverdhandoss v. m. ..... suit was on behalf of the unregistered firm and, consequently, was barred by the provisions of section 69 of the partnership act. a copy of that application was supplied to the other side (plaintiff).the latter, in his reply dated 9-8-1955, categorically denied that ..... made by the petitioners to the learned trial judge was one styled under section 9, c. p. c. read with section 69 of the partnership act, makes no material difference. we have to look to the substance of the application and not to its heading. that application clearly stated that the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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