Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 1968 Page 1 of about 130 results (0.055 seconds)

Jun 25 1968 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Janab N. Hyath Batcha Sahib

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-25-1968

Reported in : [1969]72ITR528(Mad)

..... does not appear to cloud or destroy the identity of the partners whose rights and liabilities vis-a-vis each other are governed by the terms of the partnership and the provisions of the indian partnership act. the members of a firm, from a certain point of view, therefore, remain as co-owners in a limited sense and subject to the terms of the ..... the property, though it is true b, by reason of the transaction, becomes entitled to certain rights which are regulated by the terms of the agreement of partnership, as well as the provisions of the indian partnership act. where the making over of tangible assets, movable or immovable, is by a certain set of persons to an incorporated company in which the same set ..... conclusion on this reasoning. apart from the foregoing, there are other weighty reasons for concurring with the view of the tribunal. section 14 of the indian partnership act shows the different process or methods by which a firm of partnership may come to possess property. the section says ' the property of the firm includes all property and rights and interests in property originally brought ..... in which two or more persons combine their efforts and conjointly apply the same to a commercial or business activity with a view to make profit. section 4 of the indian partnership act makes this explicit and says that a ' partnership ' is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 28 1968 (HC)

Madhavji Khatau Katira and anr. Vs. Trikamdas Narandas Tanna

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jun-28-1968

Reported in : AIR1969Guj205

..... he had been expelled from the suit firm. he has been wrongfully expelled. it is a mala fide act of the appellants and it is in contravention of the statutory provisions of the indian partnership act. after the suit notice ex. 28, the respondent was not allowed to take part in the affairs ..... prosecuting the suit. the suit was a suit to recover the debt due, to the firm. it was, therefore, observed:'under section 47, partnership act after the dissolution of a firm, the remaining partners may represent the dissolved firm including the interest of the deceased partner to recover any debt due ..... district judge cannot therefore, be disturbed so far as they are concerned. in the circumstances, it would not be possible to take accounts of the partnership even if the appellant succeeded in this appeal. this appeal, therefore, cannot legitimately be proceeded with in the absence of the legal representatives of ..... wrong. it was not bona fide. notice of expulsion was ultra vires, illegal and unenforceable. clause 25 of the partnership agreement is consistent with section 33(1) of the act provided it is exercised in good faith by majority of partners. that the respondent was not expelled by the appellants in ..... have expelled the plaintiff-respondent in the bona fide exercise of the power of expulsion vested in them in view of the provisions of the partnership agreement referred to, in the plaint that the suit was misconceived and not maintainable. the suit should be dismissed.5. the learned trial judge .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 1968 (HC)

Bharat Sarvodaya Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohatta Brothers

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Apr-01-1968

Reported in : AIR1969Guj178; (1969)GLR457

..... partners are collectively called a firm, and the name under which their business is carried on is called the firm name. see section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932. order 30, rule 1 of the code enables two or more persons claiming or being liable as partners and carrying on business in india ..... cross appeals raise an interesting question as to the interpretation of the two mandatory conditions laid down in section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932, hereinafter referred to as 'the act,' in the context of a reconstituted firm by addition of a new partner and when the cause of action had accrued after such ..... consisting of wall ullah and p.l. bhargava jj., has held that the firm being in fact the plaintiff and it being registered under the partnership act, the provisions of section 69(2) were complied with and hence the plaint would not be rejected for want of a copy of the registered firm ..... reconstitution by ex. 116 oh 24th october 1949, therefore, there is no substance in the contention of mr. nanavati that the said partnership deed, ex. 116, was not acted upon and the finding of the trial court on this question must be reversed. 16. mr. gandhi has put up an alternative case ..... exception in rule 4 only to the case where the partner dies makes it amply clear that otherwise the provisions of section 45 of the indian contract act would normally prevail and any suit without joining all the partners or by the compendious use of the firm name without disclosing all the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 25 1968 (HC)

National Trading Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal I ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-25-1968

Reported in : [1969]71ITR513(Cal)

..... forever.'first part of the clause, namely, the part which permits inspection of the accounts by the minor partners is covered by sub-section (2) of section 30 of the indian partnership act, which reads as follows :'such minor has a right to such share of the property and of the profits of the firm as may be agreed upon, and he may ..... court held that the income-tax officer was only empowered to registered a partnership which was specified in the instrument of partnership and it was not open to him to registered a partnership different from that which was formed by the instrument. it was further held that section 30 of the indian partnership act was designed to confer equal benefits upon the minor by treating him ..... as a partner but it did not render a minor a competent and full partner, and any document which made a minor full partner could not be regarded as valid for the purpose of registration. it should be noticed that the instrument of partnership in dwarkadas ..... executed. of the minors, ratish kumar agarwalla (party of the fourth part in the deed of partnership) attained majority during the relevant year of accounting. registration under section 26a of the indian income-tax act had been accorded to the assessee-firm on the basis of the partnership deed, dated may 14, 1956, for the assessment year 1957-58, which was the first year .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 1968 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kedarmall Keshardeo

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Feb-20-1968

..... fourth partner and she may be accountable to the minor for the profits she has earned out of the partnership. this automatically does not make the minor, gobindram bajaj, as a fifth partner in the partnership.8. section 4 of the indian partnership act defines ' partnership ' as a relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by ..... all or any of them acting for all. persons who have entered into partnership with one another are called individually ' partners ' and collectively 'a firm ..... '. under section 5 of the same act, the relation of partnership arises from contract and ..... , there is no basis for holding on the recitals of the document that the minor was also admitted into the partnership, and hence cannot be deemed to be a partner under section 2(6b) of the indian income-tax act.12. the learned counsel next draws our attention to the following observations of their lordships of the supreme court in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 1968 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala Vs. Travancore Sugars and Chemicals ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Apr-05-1968

Reported in : [1969]71ITR385(Ker)

..... his own. prior to the case of cox v. hickman sub-partners were even liable to the creditors of the original partnership. be that as it may, and whether he is treated as an assignee within section 29 of the indian partnership act, as some cases do, a sub-partner has definite enforceable rights to claim a share in the profits accrued to or ..... received by the partner.'and the court held :'in our view, in the case of a sub-partnership, the sub-partnership creates a superior title and diverts the income before it ..... which persuaded me to differ from him.this reference has been made by the income-tax appellate tribunal madras bench, under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the act), on the application of the commissioner of income-tax, kerala. the question of law referred for the opinion of this court is :'whether, on the facts ..... profits of the company. we must remember the distinction between apparent profits and real profit. what is taxed under the income-tax act is only the profits of the company calculated on commercial principles. in the privy council case of indian radio & cable communications co ltd. v. commissioner of income-tax, lord maugham said :'.... it is not universally true to say that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 1968 (HC)

Oudh Cocogem and Provision Stores Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-05-1968

Reported in : [1968]69ITR819(All)

..... created by statute or by common law, you may reject the bad part and retain the good.section 41 of the indian partnership act deals with dissolution of firms. a firm is dissolved under certain circumstances. the proviso to section 41 of the partnership act states :'provided that, where more than one separate adventure or undertaking is carried on by the firm, the illegality of ..... void, and no firm came into existence. that reasoning must fail, if it is held that the deed of partnership is partly valid, and a firm was constituted under the deed of partnership.section 26a of the indian income-tax act, 1922 laid down the procedure for registration of firms. sub-section (2) of section 26a laid down that an application for registration shall ..... invalid.the question now arises whether the mere fact that the partners planned to sell wines vitiated the entire deed of partnership. section 23 of the contract act defines unlawful considerations and objects. the consideration or object of an agreement is unlawful if it is forbidden by law or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it ..... one or more shall not of itself cause the dissolution of the firm in respect of its lawful adventures and undertakings.'somewhat similar considerations arise when a number of persons enter into partnership for carrying on activities .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 1968 (HC)

V. Danmull Sowcar Vs. Syed Ali Mohamed

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-15-1968

Reported in : AIR1969Mad214

..... the section does not require that the claim for eviction by alandlord should be for his exclusive business. 7. the definition of 'partnership' in section 4 of the indian partnership act closely follows that in the english partnership act and is as follows: 'partnership is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of business carried on by all or any of them ..... acting for all.' in dulichand laxminarayan v. c. i. t. nagpur, : [1956]29itr535(sc) it has been held that the word 'persons' in section 4 of the partnership act ..... contemplates only legal persons, natural or artificial, and that a firm is not a person. it is pointed out in the decision that english lawyers do not recognise a firm as an entity distinct from the members composing it and that the indian partnership law is based on the english law. this ..... principle has been reiterated in narayanappa v. bhaskara krishnappa, : [1966]3scr400 and the nature of the interests of a partner in a partnership property during the subsistence of the partnership and after its dissolution is clearly indicated. 8. the learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 1968 (HC)

R.N. Oswal Hosiery and Mahabir Wollen Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-28-1968

Reported in : AIR1969P& H8

..... to be resolved by us, it would be noted that though a 'firm' has generally to be given the meaning assigned to it in the indian partnership act, all the same it would be an 'assessee' under sub-section (2) of section 2 with all the incidents of this term, if ..... of the amount of refund due to him'. sub-section (6b) of the same section defines 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' to have the same meaning respectively as in the indian partnership act, 1932. a 'person' under sub-section (9) of section 2 is defined to include a hindu undivided family and local ..... authority. section 3 of the act is the charging section which says:'where any central act enacts that income-tax shall be charged ..... questions which fall for determination in the reference made to this court under subsection (1) of s. 66 of the indian income tax act, 1922 (hereinafter called the act) are these:'(1) whether two partnership firms having common partners and identical shares are as a matter of law one? (2) if yes, whether the ..... :'whether in law common partners can constitute two separate firms in respect of different businesses carried on by these partners for the purpose of the indian income-tax act?'the same bench of chief justice chagla and tendolkar j. reaffirmed the same legal position in jeshinghbhai ujamshi v. commissioner of income-tax, bombay .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 20 1968 (HC)

Kartar Singh and Sher Singh Vs. Harcharan Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-20-1968

Reported in : AIR1969P& H244

..... evidence. exhibits pa and pb, by the courts below is perverse. it is stressed with reference to section 47 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (hereinafter called 'the act') that these documents, exhibits pa and pb, are not a deed of dissolution of partnership or even evidence of such dissolution; at best, they are evidence of the fact that the affairs of the old firm ..... . umayal achi, air 1959 mad 283.15. before i discuss the rulings cited on both sides, it will be useful to refer to the provisions of section 42 of the partnership act, which read as follows:'42. subject is dissolved - (a) if constituted for a fixed term, by the expiry of that term; (b) if constituted to carry out one or more ..... mortgage of 1925, but it does not necessarily follow that the firm was dissolved. the dissolution of a firm, in between the parties, (vide section 42, partnership act), and an intention to continue the business in partnership with the legal representative, may be gathered from the conduct of the parties...... 'in the present instance it appears from the conduct of the parties that ..... within the meaning of section 42 between the original partners.27. a observed above, there is nothing in section 42 of the partnership act or any; other law which requires that only an express contract will prevent dissolution of a partnership of the death of a partner. if that were the intention of the legislature they would have clearly said so in s .....

Tag this Judgment!

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