Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 1961 Page 1 of about 132 results (0.059 seconds)

Dec 08 1961 (HC)

All India Motor Transport Mutual Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Raphael George ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-08-1961

Reported in : AIR1963Bom7; (1962)64BOMLR219; ILR1962Bom266

..... when the petition for winding it up is presented. but the 'partnership' referred to in section 2(8) of the insurance act is a partnership to which the indian partnership act, 1932, applies. such partnership may well consist of less than seven members, and it is obvious that such a partnership would not be covered by the provisions of section 582 of the ..... find as to whatan 'insurance company' means under the insurance act. that expression is denned in section 2(8) of that act. the definition runs as follows: ' 'insurance company' means any insurer beinga company, association or partnership which maybe wound up under the indian companies act, 1913, or to which the indian partnership act, 1932,applies.' thus, what a court can wind up under ..... companies act. such a partnership can, however, be wound up as an insurance company ..... section 53 ofthe insurance act is any insurer being a company,association or partnership which may be wound up under the companies act or to which the indianpartnership act, 1932, applies. if ft .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 1961 (SC)

Karumuthu Thiagarajan Chettiar and anr. Vs. E.M. Muthappa Chettiar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-27-1961

Reported in : AIR1961SC1225; [1962]32CompCas155(SC); [1961]3SCR998

..... managing agents. this suit was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that it was not maintainable under s. 69 of the indian partnership act, no. ix of 1932 (hereinafter called the act), though the trial court gave findings on other issues also. the respondent went up in appeal to the madras high court against the ..... said to have been terminated, i.e., whether on march 22, 1943, or on september 29, 1943. now under s. 87-b(f) of the indian companies act, no. vii of 1913, which was then in force, the appointment of a managing agent, the removal of a managing agent and any variation of a managing ..... the high court. the high court held that the suit against the mills was barred under s. 69 of the act, though it was made clear that if there were assets of the partnership firm in possession of the mills the respondent would be entitled to recover them. the high court however ordered the mills ..... determination of which were fixed. the high court was further of the view that s. 8 of the act would also apply to the partnership in question as the evidence showed that the partners had entered into partnership in order to carry on the business of managing agency of the two mills and such business was an ..... further plea, namely, that so far as they were concerned, the suit was barred under s. 69 of the act. 3. the trial court held that the firm of muthappa and co. was a partnership at will and therefore was legally dissolved by the appellant by giving notice dated march 4, 1943. it further held .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 1961 (HC)

First National Bank Ltd. Vs. Industrial Oil Co. and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-29-1961

Reported in : AIR1962P& H170; [1962]32CompCas994(P& H)

..... 'suit' is not defined in the indian partnership act. in hansraj gupta v. dehra dun mussoorie electrict tramway co. ltd., air 1933 pc 63, it was observed by their lordships of the privy council as under:'the word 'suit ..... ram lal harnam dass's case, (s) air 1957 punj 159, it was wrongly conceded that these proceedings were not a 'suit' and s. 69(2) of the indian partnership act had no application to the same. he argued that the respondent-firm, therefore, could not file the present application against the petitioner-bank, unless it was registered.(11) the word ..... 69(3).'as at present advised, i am in respectful agreement with the decision of bishan narain j., and would hold that the provisions of section 69(3) of the indian partnership act would be no bar in the filing of the application by the respondent-firm, even though it was not registered.(10) learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that in ..... respondents 2 and 3 were displaced persons from pakistan.(3) this application was opposed by the petitioner-bank, which pleaded that the respondent firm was not duly registered under the indian partnership act; that the respondents were not displaced persons; that out of the bills in question, only some had been actually realized; an that the petitioner-bank was under a scheme of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 01 1961 (HC)

S.M. Kanniappa Nadar Vs. K.K. Karuppiah Nadar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-01-1961

Reported in : AIR1962Mad240

..... parties intended to carry on the business after getting the licence suitably amended in accordance with the central excise and salt act, 1944.(2) the firm was duly registered under the indian partnership act. the appellant claims to have advanced on various dates a sum of rs. 10,000 to the respondent in pursuance ..... of the articles of the partnership. it also appears that the appellant and his son were put in charge of a section ..... the decision of rajagopala aiyangar, j, in govindraj v. kandaswami goundan, . that was also a case coming under the central excise and salt act, 1944 the partnership concerned in it being in regard to the vending of tobacco to which the same rules of prohibition by an unlicensed vendor apply. rajagopala aiyangar, ..... was prohibited by law or was in contravention of the provisions of the central excise and salt act, 1944 by entering into a partnership for the sale and manufacture of safety matches. entering into partnership by a licensee cannot be held to be per se illegal. rule 178 of the rules framed ..... mad lj 369 : (air 1943 pc 34), sir george rankin in delivering the judgment of the privy council analysed the various provisions of the indian contract act, and held that money received by a party to a contract in part discharge of the consideration due or to become due, though applied for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 1961 (SC)

Ramsaran Das and Bros. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Calcutta and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-31-1961

Reported in : AIR1962SC1326; [1962]Supp(1)SCR276; [1962]13STC6(SC)

..... this case, it is not necessary to state in any detail the facts and circumstances leading up to this appeal. the appellant is a partnership firm, under the indian partnership act, with its principal place of business at 18, netaji subhas road, calcutta, within the jurisdiction of the first respondent. the appellant alleges that ..... colliery owners and consumers. in respect of its business as a dealer, the appellant is a registered dealer under the bengal finance (sales tax) act (bengal act vi of 1941). its second business as a middleman relates mainly to sales of coal and coke in the course of inter-state trade or ..... he can come up to this court on special leave directly against the judgment of the assessing authority, without exhausting all his remedies under the act. 6. there are cases in which this court was moved directly against the order of assessment, after ignoring the orders of the high court ..... by which the tribunal had allowed the appeal before it and set aside the order of the collector of sales tax, under the bombay sales tax act. the respondents in that case were commission agents doing business as clearing and transport contractors. they had applied to the collector of sales tax, bombay, ..... of the assessment. 3. from the statement of facts given above, it is clear that the appellant did not exhaust all his remedies under the act itself, and came directly to this court as if the order of assessment passed by the first respondent was final. the question, therefore, arises .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 18 1961 (HC)

Messrs. Kylasa Sarabhaiah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Prade ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-18-1961

Reported in : [1962]46ITR470(AP)

..... . such a course is not permissible in law. in commissioner of income-tax v. dwarkadas khetan & co., it is pointed out by the supreme court that :'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 benefits of ..... (3) veeravalli narayana. in view of the decision of the supreme court above referred to, this partnership evidenced by the instrument dated december 12, 1953, is illegal and is not a partnership at all which can be recognised either under the indian partnership act or under the indian income-tax act.but then, it is contended by the learned counsel for the assessee that though in the ..... the income-tax officer in such manner as may be prescribed.'two condition have to be satisfied before a partnership can be registered under section 26a of the act : (1) it must be a partnership as permitted by the law, viz., the indian partnership act and (2) the instrument of partnership must specify the individual shares of the partners. unless these two conditions are satisfied, the alleged ..... concerned deed of partnership one of the partners is shown as kylasa sarabhaiah firm, it is really the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 14 1961 (HC)

Thummala Rama Rao and ors. Vs. Chodagam Venkateswara Rao and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-14-1961

Reported in : AIR1963AP154

..... andhra patrika and the notice to the registrar of firms and that, therefore, they are estopped from contending that the appellants continue to be liable under section 32 of the indian partnership act notwithstanding their retirement on 6-6-51 and 4-5-52. in support of this contention, reliance is placed upon the decision in abdul karim v. narayana murthy, 1958 andh ..... given of the dissolution.'the learned judge noticed that the words 'unless they themselves had notice of such dissolution' occurring in section 264 of the contract act have been omitted m section 45 of the indian partnership act and then considered the effect of that omission. the learned judge pointed out that public notice is now sufficient in all cases without any distinction between ..... suit promissory notes and not on the promissory notes themselves and that therefore all the partners including the appellants were liable. section 22 of the indian partnership act is 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 firm shall be done or executed in the firm name ..... the dales of the execution of the three promissory notes. but it held that since public notice under section 32 clause (3) of the indian partnership act was not given in the manner prescribed in section 72 of the said act, these defendants also were liable under the suit promissory notes. it also held that ex. a-4, the agreement dated 30-5-1952 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 21 1961 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay South Vs. Md. Khalid Faquih and Co.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-21-1961

Reported in : [1963]47ITR383(Bom)

..... a minor a competent and full partner. for that purpose, the law of partnership must be considered, apart from the definition in the income-tax act. now, the entire position has been summarised thus : '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 benefits of partnership. any document which goes beyond ..... partners. there being these two factors and there being no express term in any of the deeds contravening the provisions of section 30 of the partnership act, the aforesaid decision of the supreme court had no application to the facts of the present case. it would, at this stage, be ..... dissolve the firm. it is his contention that there is not clause in both these deeds which has expressly contravened section 30 of the partnership act in any of the aforesaid manner. the preamble to these deeds no doubts describes the minors as partner in the firm. but a description ..... of the indian income-tax act and the question referred to us is in the following terms : 'whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee firm was rightly registration under section 26a of the act of the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 ?' 2. the assessee is partnership firm, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 21 1961 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. Vs. Messrs. Munna Lal Gupta, Kanpur.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-21-1961

Reported in : [1962]46ITR362(All)

the question referred for our opinion by the income-tax appellate tribunal is :'whether on the facts of the case, the firm was entitled to registration under section 26a of the income-tax act for the assessment year 1956-57 ?'the statement of the case submitted by the tribunal shows that in the partnership which was constituted by an instrument of partnership three persons purported to enter into a partnership. these three were ganga narain and his two brothers, rajendra prasad and shesh narain. in addition, certain minors were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. it, however, appears that even out of the three person who constituted the partnership two, rajendra prasad and shesh narain, were minors. at the time when this deed of partnership was executed, therefore, only one out of the three executants of the deed of partnership was a major. such a partnership was clearly void under section 30 of the indian partnership act and consequently it could not be registered under section 26a of the income-tax act. this view of ours follows the decision of the supreme court in commissioner of income-tax v. dwarkadas khetan & co. as a result the question referred to us is answered in the negative. the department will be entitled to the costs of this reference from the assessee which we fix ar rs. 150 representing fee of learned counsel for the department.question answered in the negative.

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 09 1961 (HC)

Gandhi Sewa Shikshan Samiti Vs. Gulam HussaIn Welji

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-09-1961

Reported in : (1962)64BOMLR206

..... to enforce a right on behalf of such public trust.8. mr. siras for the defendant contended that this provision is analogous to the provision of section 69 of the indian partnership act and it imposes an absolute bar upon an unregistered society to maintain a suit of any kind against anybody whatsoever. for appreciating this argument it is necessary to closely scrutinize ..... as to how the consent of the charity commissioner for instituting a suit is to be secured. section 52a is somewhat important. it provides:notwithstanding anything contained in the indian limitation act, 1908, no suit against an assignee for valuable consideration of any immovable property of the public trust which has been registered or is deemed to have been registered under ..... earlier meetings had already submitted its report which came to be adopted in the general meeting. it was also resolved that the samiti should be got registered under the indian societies registration act. in accordance with the said resolution, the society came to be registered on march 24, 1953. it is, however, necessary to remember that only sixteen members subscribed to ..... . arya samaj (1945) 48 bom. l.r. 341. the learned judge came to the conclusion on examination of the provisions of the societies registration act and comparing those provisions -with the provisions of the indian companies act that once the society is registered, the society enjoys the status of a legal entity apart from the members constituting the same and is capable .....

Tag this Judgment!


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