Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 1963 Page 1 of about 113 results (0.093 seconds)

Feb 11 1963 (SC)

Firm Girdhar Mal Kapur Chand Vs. Firm Dev Raj Madan Gopal

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-11-1963

Reported in : AIR1963SC1587; [1964]1SCR995

..... to the high court of punjab. in the defendant's appeal it was contended that the suit was not properly entertained as the plaintiff firm was not registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. it was also urged that the transactions were illegal being forward transactions in cotton and edible oil-seeds and thus prohibited by law. both these contentions were rejected by ..... were wagering contracts, and so void in law, that they being forward transactions were prohibited by law and further that the plaintiff firm was not a registered firm under the indian partnership act, and therefore the suit did not lie. 3. the trial court rejected all the contentions in law and accepted the plaintiff's story as regards the transactions but held as ..... country and thus ceased to be a registration for india. in our opinion, this argument is wholly unsound. once there was registration under the indian partnership act that registration, in our opinion, continues to operate as registration under that act and continues to be effective - in other words, valid registration in the eye of law as administered in india so long as the registration ..... are urged in support of this. the first is based on the requirement of s. 69(2) of the indian partnership act. it is no longer disputed that the firm was registered by the registrar of firms, punjab, on august 16, 1946, under the indian partnership act, 1932, as it stood on that date. that was an order made before the partition of india took place .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 15 1963 (HC)

Amar Nath Vs. Produce Exchange Corporation Ltd. Calcutta

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-15-1963

Reported in : AIR1963P& H479

..... in the same right can be set off against each other. the appellants, who are partners are governed by the indian partnership act section 25 of which makes it quite-clear that partners are liable jointly as well as severally for all acts binding on the firm. here a joint debt was owing to the appellants in their capacity as members of a firm .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 20 1963 (SC)

Sait Nagjee Purushotham and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-20-1963

Reported in : AIR1967SC617; [1964]51ITR849(SC); [1964]6SCR91

..... under the scottish law. but under the english common law, a firm is not regarded as a separate entity from the members composing it. the indian partnership act has accepted the english common law though mercantile usages have crept into business accountancy and the civil procedure code allows a firm to sue or be sued in the ..... only an individual but also a firm. this is also clear from the words "not being merely a change in the constitution of a partnership." since the in- come-tax act assesses a partnership as a unit and such units (1) civil appeal no. 455 of 1963 decided on dec. 13, 1963. must, in the ..... firms in respect of different businesses carried on by them for the purpose of the indian income-tax act. where they do this, it is mainly a question of fact whether there has been a succession to one of such partnership or not, whether for the purpose of s. 26 or for the purpose of ..... or vocation on which tax was at any time charged under the provisions of the indian income-tax act, 1918, is succeeded in such capacity by another person, the change not being merely a change in the constitution of a partnership, no tax shall be payable by the first mentioned person in respect of the ..... or vocation on which tax was at any time charged under the provisions of the indian income-tax act, 1918, is succeeded in such capacity by another person, the change not being merely a change in the constitution of a partnership, no tax shall be payable by the first mentioned person in respect of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 1963 (HC)

Jodha Mal Ghungar Mal and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Simla ( ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-31-1963

Reported in : AIR1965P& H257; [1964]53ITR655(P& H)

..... the firm ab as such and c and d, it was not legally a firm under the indian partnership act or under the indian income-tax act. the partnership could not be construed as a partnership between a and b as individuals, and c and d, as it was specifically stated in the deed that the first partner was the firm ab and a had signed ..... of all the four individual partners of this smaller firm. he further stated that in the application filed by the new firm under section 26-a of the indian income-tax act as well as in the original partnership agreement, under which the smaller firm was formed, the shares of the partners in the smaller firm have been specified, and that, consequently, the ..... was made by the new firm to the income-tax officer, special circle, ambala, under s. 26-a of the indian income-tax act for the registration of the firm. in paragraph 2 it was stated as under:'the original instrument of partnership under which the firm is constituted specifying the individual shares of the partners, together with a copy, is enclosed. the ..... of income-tax : [1937]5itr49(mad) . the relevant part of the head-note in kanniappa naicker's case : [1937]5itr49(mad) reads as follows:'a partnership cannot be registered as a firm under section 26-a of the indian income-tax act, where the instrument of partnership does not specify on the face of it the individual shares of the partners. therefore, where a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 1963 (HC)

Gurunath V. Dhakappa Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-22-1963

Reported in : ILR1963KAR940; [1964]53ITR757a(KAR); [1964]53ITR757a(Karn)

..... act, which provides that subject to contract between the partners, a partner is not entitled to receive remuneration for taking part in the conduct of the ..... 16 sets out the duties of the assistant managers. on an examination of the partnership deed, it is clear that the partners had agreed to remunerate the manager for the duties performed by him. therefore the present case is not one that falls within the scope of section 9 of the indian partnership act, 1932. but it falls under section 13(a) of that ..... , if under the law of partnership, a partnership firm cannot remunerate a partner, there was no need for section 10(4)(b) or section 16(1)(b) of the income-tax ..... from the profits of the partnership firm. the only question that we have to decide is whether the remuneration received by shri gurunath v. dhakappa should be considered as his individual income or that of his family. hence, we are not concerned with section 10(4)(b) or section 16(1)(b) of the indian income-tax act 1922, in this case. but .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 22 1963 (HC)

T.N. Nanjunda Setty and anr. Vs. the State of Mysore

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-22-1963

Reported in : AIR1964Kant124; AIR1964Mys124; (1963)2MysLJ75

..... credit of the releasee in the account books of m/s. d. r. aswathanarayana setty and sons, old tharugupet, bangalore', a registered firm under the indian partnership act, to the credit of the releasor in the above account books and the releasor has agreed to receive the same in full and final settlement in lieu ..... the opinion that the document was liable to be charged with stamp duty under each of three articles i.e. article 39 (b) (instrument of dissolution of partnership), article 44 (b) (release) and article 19 (conveyance). the court was of the view that if came only under article 44 (b). it will be ..... he regarded as an authority for the proposition that such a document is a release deed and not an instrument of partition.11. in reference under stamp act section 46, ilr 12 mad 198 (fb), each of two persons who had originally claimed exclusive right as heirs to the property of a deceased ..... held that they were in the nature of deeds of conveyance and ordered that stamp duty in accordance with article 18 of schedule i-a of the act together with penalty of rs. 5/- be recovered. the matter came up before the chief controlling revenue authority, mysore (commissioner of stamps), at the ..... hands to this deed of release this 30th day of june 1957 in the presence of the witnesses attesting hereunder:'' 2. the relevant provisions of the act which have a bearing on the question under consideration are given below.3. section 2(9) reads as follows: 'conveyance' includes a conveyance on sale .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 09 1963 (SC)

Champaran Cane Concern Vs. State of Bihar and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-09-1963

Reported in : AIR1963SC1737; [1963]49ITR152(SC); [1964]2SCR921

..... at from the aforesaid standpoint, the question before the taxingauthorities in the present cases was whether on the facts and circumstancesestablished in the cases in inference of a partnership firm within the meaningof the indian partnership act, 1932 followed and s. 13 was not attractedthereto. that, we take it, must be a question of law. that was the questionwhich was referred to ..... -ownership concern maydescribe itself as a firm. that does not necessarily mean that it is apartnership firm within the meaning of s. 4 of the indian partnership act asindicated in s. 2(k) of the act. in our view no facts and circumstances have beenfound in these cases from which the taxing authorities properly instructed inlaw could have come to the conclusion ..... showed that the two co-owners joinedtogether in appointing kanodia as common manager for supervision of cultivationand for management of the agricultural properties in the district of champaran.'partnership' within the meaning of the indian partnership act of1932 is a relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of abusiness carried on by all or any of them ..... and the high court answered it on thefooting that the proper inference was that the assessee was a partnership firmwithin the meaning of the indian partnership act, 1932. the assessee contendsthat the proper inference is that the assessee was a co-ownership concern andnot a partnership firm and on that footing the common manager is entitled to beassessed under s. 13 of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 1963 (HC)

Uttamchand Vs. Mohandas

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-18-1963

Reported in : AIR1964Raj50

..... unquestionably void, yet there are circumstances which show that the parties did not correctly appreciate the implications of the law applicable to that agreement i.e., (section 30 of the indian partnership act). on the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the terms of the agreement and the conduct of the parties, it can be safely concluded that the agreement ..... to the benefits of partnership would be a perfectly valid agreement. the agreement in this case recited in paragraph ..... doubt that a minor can be admitted to the benefits of a partnership. a guardian of a minor therefore, can validly enter into a contract admitting the minor to the benefits of a partnership, where a partnership already exists though he cannot be made a partner in a firm (vide section 30 indian partnership act). therefore, a contract by a guardian of a minor admitting him ..... therefore, which falls for determination is whether the respondent is entitled to the possession of the shop in dispute from the appellant under the provisions of section 65 of the indian contract act. the intention of the section is to prevent a party to a void agreement, to retain benefits received under it. the section is not restricted to agreements which are .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 1963 (HC)

Kerala Road Lines Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Aug-12-1963

Reported in : AIR1964Ker251; [1964]51ITR711(Ker)

..... mala fides or that the registrar has not followed the prescribed procedure.(ii) it must follow that there was no registration of the firm under the indian partnership act, 1932, during the previous year 1957-58 and that the question referred has to be answered in the negative and against the assessee. we do ..... a case where the statement delivered has been returned by the registrar and section 58 itself does not come into operation.10. section 58 of the indian partnership act, 1932, came up for consideration in girdhari lal v. spedding dinga singh and co., air 1954 him pra 52. the court said:'the satisfaction ..... air 1935 all 898 it was contended that registration is effected as soon as there has been a compliance with the provisions of section 58 of the indian partnership act, 1932. kendall, j., repelled the argument and said:'if section 58 stood alone, this argument might have some force, but section 59 shows that ..... day was returned by the registrar on the ground that it was not in order and we cannot but hold that there was no registration under the indian partnership act, 1932, before the end of the previgus year 1957-58.7. in (firm) ram prasad-thakur prasad v. (firm) kamta prasad-sita ram, ..... was returned on the ground that it was not duly stamped and for lack of some of the particulars prescribed. 5. section 59 of the indian partnership act, 1932, provides that when the registrar is satisfied that the provisions of section 58 have been duly complied with, he shall record an entry of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 1963 (HC)

Sheoduttrai Bholanath Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and OrissA ...

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Aug-19-1963

Reported in : [1964]52ITR121(Orissa)

..... there was no dissolution of the old firm, but a mere reconstitution of the same.the question which arises for consideration now is, where an old firm registered under the indian partnership act was reconstituted and notice of such reconstitution was given to the registrar of firms under section 63(1) on october 14, 1957, that firm can be held to be 'a ..... firm registered under the indian partnership act, 1932' on the date of the application under section 26a, namely, october 18, 1957, even though the actual order of the registrar under section 63(1) of the ..... from the date of the constitution of the firm where the firm is not registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. clause (b) however says that if the firm is not registered under the indian partnership act, 1932, it may apply for registration under section 26a of the indian income-tax act, 1922, before the end of the previous year of the firm. thus the two clauses of ..... the tribunal disagreed with the findings of the two lower authorities. but it held that even an old registered firm which is reconstituted must apply for fresh registration under the indian partnership act and that as the order of the registrar was passed only on october 21, 1959, the reconstituted firm was not a firm registered under the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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