Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 1964 Page 1 of about 141 results (0.078 seconds)

Apr 09 1964 (HC)

N.Sp.N. Nagappa Chettiar Firm, Madurai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-09-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Mad424; [1965]56ITR569(Mad)

..... the previous year; and (2), before the end of the previous year in any other case; (b) where the firm is registered under the indian partnership act, 1932, or where the deed of partnership is registered under the indian registration act, 1908 before the end of the previous year of that firm; and (c) where the application is for renewal of registration under rule 6, ..... year of assessment subsequent thereto be made......... (a) where the firm is not registered under the indian partnership act, 1932, or where the deed of partnership is not registered under the indian registration act, 1908 and the application for registration is being made for the first time under the act, (1) within a period of six months of the constitution of the firm or before the ..... assessee could make the application before the end of the previous year. in the other class of cases where the firm is registered under the partnership act or where the deed of partnership is registered under the indian registration act, the application should be made before the end of the previous year.looking at the rule closely, it is seen that there are only ..... really two classes. where the firm had been already in existence in the past, whether it was registered under the partnership act or the deed of partnership had been registered .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 1964 (SC)

Devji @ Deviji Shivji Vs. Maganlal R. Athrana and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-01-1964

Reported in : AIR1965SC139; [1964]7SCR564

..... in order to bind a firm by an act or an instrument executed by a partner on behalf of the firm, the act should be done or the instrument should be executed in the name of the ..... was a benamidar for the partnership firm. it is only this case which the respondents had to meet, and in our judgment, it would not be proper to permit the appellant to make out an entirely new case at this stage. apart from that, s. 22 of the indian partnership act, 1932, clearly provides that ..... case. in that case also, it was found that the liability arose upon a contract entered into by one of the partners in connection with the partnership business. this case is, therefore, similar to the one just referred to above. the third case relied upon is pandiri veeranna v. grandi veerabhadraswami ilr ..... they came into possession of the demised colliery immediately after the execution of the sub-lease, and wants this court to infer from this that the partnership had already come into existence before the lease was obtained. this, however, has never been the case of the appellant in the courts below. the ..... respondent 4 & 5, who are father and son, admitted the appellant's contention that the lease was obtained by respondent no. 4 on behalf of the partnership firm, but their contention was that they surrendered their lease-hold interest to the appellant on november 1, 1950, which was accepted by him, and that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 01 1964 (SC)

Kylasa Sarabhiah, Bombay Cloth Shop, Secunderabad Vs. Commissioner of ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-01-1964

Reported in : AIR1965SC1411; [1965]56ITR219(SC); [1965]2SCR310

..... no power to reject the application. undoubtedly, the application must strictly be in conformity with the act and the rules, but in ascertaining whether the application is in conformity with the rules, the deed of partnership must be reasonably construed. 5. under the indian partnership act, 1932 partnership 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. a firm is strictly not a person : it is an association of ..... persons, and an agreement by which a firm purports to enters into a partnership with an individual or ..... the assessee is entitled to registration under section 26-a of the income-tax act ?', a negative answer. section 26-a of the indian income-tax act, 1922, provides : '(1) application may be made to the income-tax officer on behalf of any firm, constituted under an instrument of partnership, specifying the individual shares of the partners, for registration for the purpose of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 11 1964 (HC)

Vittaldas Jagannathadas and anr. Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commi ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-11-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Mad508

..... is to be enhanced to rs. 3500 per mensem and there are other conditions.(5) the firm itself had been registered as a partnership under s. 69 of the indian partnership act. it is claimed for writ petitioners that this is an independent legal entity, with no relationship in law to the earlier concern of ..... perspective, and also keep in mind the principle that the act really applies to the factory of establishment or industrial organisation, whichever it might be termed, and not to changes tin ownership, or to the history ..... vol. 1. i find that the most helpful definition of 'establishment', at least in the context of the usage of that word in the present act 19 of 1952, is that available in the oxford dictionary, namely 'organised body of men maintained for a purpose'. once we have this definition in ..... was never in dispute. it was not closed down with a view to escaping any liability which the application of the employees' provident funds act might impose.' in effect, the learned judge quashed the orders of the regional provident fund commissioner declining to give infancy protection to what was virtually ..... the period of infancy protection having expired, the present lessees are bound to make the provident fund contributions on behalf of their employees under the act. the simple question is whether this view is correct, and what are the principles of law applicable to a case of this character.(6) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 1964 (HC)

Firm Jagat Ram Om Prakash Vs. Excise and Taxation Office Assessing Aut ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-09-1964

Reported in : AIR1965P& H133

..... so far as relevant for our present purpose are briefly stated as follows: the petitioner partnership firm of amristar registered under the indian partnership act, claims to be a registered dealer under the central sales tax act no. 74 of 1956 (herinafter called the central act). for the year 1957-58 ending 31st march, 1958, the firm filed returns in ..... respect of inter-state trade in accordance with the central act for the two quarters beginning from ..... may also. so far as materiel be reproduced at this stage: 'form s. t. xiv. notice under sections 11 and 14 of the punjab general sales tax act, 1948. (see rules 31 and 38 of the punjab general sales tax rules, 1949) office of the assessingauthority -----------------------------------------districtto,--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------whereas (a) you a dealer registered under certificate ..... tax due for these two quarters at the time of the filing of he returns in accordance with section 10 of the punjab general sales tax act (hereinafter called the punjab act). on 17th october, 1961, the excise and taxation officer, described to be the assessing authority for amristsar, respondent in these proceedings, sent a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 1964 (SC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Sivakasi Match Export Company

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-29-1964

Reported in : AIR1964SC1813; [1964]53ITR204(SC); [1964]8SCR18

..... firm and shall be equally divided between the partners to this deed. it is not disputed that the partnership deed ex facie conforms to the requirements of the law of partnership as well as the income-tax act. under s.4 of the indian partnership act partnership is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of the business carried on by all ..... or any of them acting for all persons who have entered into the partnership with one another called individually partners and collectively ..... named partners represented their respective match factories, was not open to be canvas- sed in a reference under s. 66(2) of the indian income-tax act. the high court observed that cl. 16 of the partnership deed did no, impose any obligation upon the partners or their representatives of the five firms to pay commission as stipulated under that clause. undoubtedly ..... board of revenue made the following rules: rule 2. any firm constituted under an instrument of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners may, under the provisions of section 26a of the indian income-tax act, 1922 (hereinafter in, these rules referred to as the act), register with the income-tax officer, the particulars contained in the said instrument on application .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 09 1964 (HC)

National Building Material Supply Vs. Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-09-1964

Reported in : AIR1965All586

..... on business in singapore. the firm had five partners. but it had not been registered as a firm under the indian partnership act. the defendant was a firm, which was registered under the indian partnership act and was carrying on business at calcutta. in 1949 there was a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, under ..... is open to such a business to assume a trade name, but there is no law like the one contemplated by section 4 of the indian partnership act, which provides that the trade name of a joint hindu family business would indicate or stand for the various coparceners, who at the time of ..... business outside india is not a suit in fact by the partners of that firm individually, (in view of the provisions of section 4 of the indian partnership act.) ...............the word 'firm' or the 'firm name' is merely a compendious description of all the partners collectively. it follows, therefore, that where a ..... has no application to the instant case, inasmuch as jai jai ram manohar lal is not a firm within the meaning of section 4 of the indian partnership act. it has no partners at all. the business is admittedly a joint family concern, of which the various members of the family are owners ..... 10-6-47.2. one of the objections taken by the defendants in their written statement was that the plaintiff firm was not registered under the indian partnership act, and as such, the suit was not maintainable; and that, at any rate, the suit was barred under the provisions of order xxx, civil .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 1964 (SC)

Jagdish Chander Gupta Vs. Kajaria Traders (India) Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-29-1964

Reported in : AIR1964SC1882; (1964)66BOMLR709; 1965MhLJ45; [1964]8SCR50

..... competent and that the court had power to appoint an arbitrator. they disagreed on the second point : mr. justice mudholkar was of the opinion that s. 69(3) of the indian partnership act barred the application while mr. justice naik held otherwise. the case was then referred to mr. justice k. t. desai (as he then was) and he agreed with mr. justice ..... provided in the arbitration clause quoted above that the arbitrators were to be by consent of the parties and (ii) that s. 69(3) of the indian partnership act, 1932 afforded a bar to the petition because the partnership was not registered. the petition was referred by the chief justice to a divisional bench consisting of mr. justice mudholkar (as he then was) and ..... be regarded as a proceeding 'to enforce a right arising from a contract', and therefore, within the bar of section 69 of the indian partnership act. 6. mr. justice mudholkar in reaching his conclusion did not interpret the expression 'other proceeding' ejusdem generis with the words 'a claim of set-off'. he held further that the ..... that s. 69(3) was wrongly interpreted and the bar afforded by it was wrongly disallowed. section 69 of the indian partnership act may be reproduced here : '69. (1) no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this act shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of any person suing as partner in a firm against .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 05 1964 (HC)

M.W. Pradhan Vs. Panchal Engineering Works

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-05-1964

Reported in : AIR1967Bom48; (1965)67BOMLR18; ILR1966Bom965

..... be the closure of the account between the parties. in this connection, reference may be made to ss. 46 and 47 of the indian partnership act. s. 46 of the said act in effect provides that 'on the dissolution of the firm every partner or his representative is entitled, as against all the other partners ..... more facts. suit no. 1001 of 1950 was filed by one of the partners against the other for dissolution of the plaintiff-firm. the partnership was a partnership at will. the plaintiff averred at paragraph (2) of the plaint in that suit that there was an express agreement to the effect that ..... circumstances viz., the fact that demand was being made by the receiver, who was appointed by the court in the suit for dissolution of the partnership; that the receiver was making a reference to the powers vested in him by the court to recover the outstandings; that demand was being made ..... that the effect of the correspondence referred to above is to close the mutual dealings between the parties. he also contended that the dissolution of the partnership would not put an end to the dealings between the parties. these two points are connected with one another and, therefore, they can be ..... alternatively, it contended that assuming that the account was mutual, open and current, the same ceased to continue as such on the dissolution of the plaintiff's partnership. at paragraph (12) of the written statement, the defendant gave details of the set-off, which it claimed from the plaintiff. at paragraph (16), .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 1964 (HC)

Sunil Krishna Paul and Other Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Beng ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-17-1964

Reported in : [1966]59ITR457(Cal)

..... the tribunal proceeded on the right direction in negativing the assessees plea on the ground that there was no business in terms of section 4 of the indian partnership act. it has been observed in a case, n. r. wadia and co. v. commissioner of income-tax, that it does not follow from ..... coming into their coffers. accordingly, it cannot be said that the applicants were carrying on a business within the meaning of section 4 of the indian partnership act. the expression 'to share the profits of a business carried on' in section 4 really means that there must be some contribution by the partners ..... involved, was wrong. it will appear from the order of the tribunal that there was no business within the meaning of section 4 of the indian partnership act as from the instrument of agreement it is apparently clear that the agreement was for merely sharing the income in definite proportion and, therefore, the ..... to us that the principles enunciated in the aforesaid decision do not apply to cases governed by the provisions of section 4 of the indian partnership act. section 6 of this act provides that in determining whether a group of persons is or is not a firm, or whether a person is or is not ..... to respective interest, does not make them partners. as regards sharing the profits within the meaning of section 4 of the indian partnership act, a mere common interest will not make a partnership unless there is a common business. it is indeed true that a right to participate in the profits of trade and .....

Tag this Judgment!


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