Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 1970 Page 1 of about 131 results (0.238 seconds)

Feb 03 1970 (HC)

Santdas Moolchand Jhangiani and anr. Vs. Sheodayal Gurudasmal Massand

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-03-1970

Reported in : AIR1971Bom237; (1971)73BOMLR42; ILR1971Bom457; 1970MhLJ419

..... provides for transfer of goodwill after dissolution and the consequent agreements in restraint of trade.9. it will be noticed from the above arrangement of chapter vi of the indian partnership act that matters pertaining not only to the fact of dissolution and fixing the date thereof but also matters arising out of the fact of dissolution which pertain to the winding ..... separate and distinct matters or they are accessory to the principal object of the instrument. taking into consideration the fact that the legislature itself in the indian partnership act has treated the winding up of partnership as a part of its dissolution and the principles laid down which are set out hereinabove, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the ..... various ways therein provided, whereas sections 46 to 55 related to winding up and not to dissolution. we, however, find that the entire chapter vi of the indian partnership act tom section 39 to section 55 has been included in the chapter heading 'dissolution of a firm'. the legislature obviously intended to make no distinction between dissolution as such ..... the leading object or are separate and distinct, must in india depend upon the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932, and the bombay stamp act, 1958.8. chapter vi of the indian partnership act, 1932; deals with 'dissolution of a firm'. section 39 provides that the dissolution of partnership between all the partners of a firm is called the 'dissolution of the firm'. 'dissolution of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 1970 (HC)

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Salankayala Pulleswara Rao

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-19-1970

Reported in : [1972]85ITR109(AP)

..... the facts of the present case. this is a case distinguishable on facts as the state is now seeking a priority over a decree for the distribution of the partnership assets. the indian partnership act has a specified scheme of distribution of assets on dissolution. the relevant sections are sections 46, 48 and 49 which may be extracted for easy reference :section 46 : 'on ..... and sub-section (2) of section 232.'12. obviously, the decision puts the matter in issue beyond all reasonable doubt that the provisions of the partnership act under which the decrees have been passed relating to the partnership assets have to be looked to and would form a complete code for working out priorities, if any.13. in this context i have also ..... disturbed by reading into it a priority which is not expressly provided thereunder. it is manifest that there is nothing in the partnership act which provides for a priority of debts due under the income-tax act and the sales tax act. i am fortified in my view by the statement of the law by the federal court in governor-general in council v ..... federal court said at page 19 of the judgment :'we have no hesitation in coming to a conclusion and holding that the crown is bound by the provisions of the indian companies act, 1913, and is bound, in regard to the provisions relating to the liquidation of companies, 'to a statutory scheme of administration wherein the prerogative right of the crown to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 1970 (HC)

Erandol Taluka Gramodyog, Utpadak Sahakari Society, Erandol Vs. Sunil ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-04-1970

Reported in : AIR1971Bom91; (1970)72BOMLR620; (1970)6CompLJ212(Bom); 1970MhLJ923

..... and a decree was passed in its favour. when the decree was sought to be executed, the judgment-debtor objected on the ground that under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act a suit by an unregistered firm was not maintainable and, therefore, the decree passed in favour of such unregistered firm was a nullity. the patna high court held that:--'the ..... the subject-matter of the suit or over the parties to it.3. section 164 of the maharashtra co-operative societies act is mandatory in its terms just like section 3 of the limitation act or section 69(1) of the indian partnership act, 1932. what section 164 does is to require that the requisite notice should be given prior to the institution of the ..... in section 69(2) is only to the institution of the suit. the plea of non-maintainability of a suit, on behalf of an unregistered firm under section 69(2), partnership act, is, as such, not available to a judgment-debtor at the execution stage. such an objection should be taken in the suit itself before the passing of the decree. if ..... , has no jurisdiction to go behind such a decree.' the bar to maintainability of the suitenacted in section 69(2) of the partnership act is in language identical with that of section 164 of the maharashtra co-operative societies act. the material provisions of section 69(2) are:--'no suit to enforce a right arisingfrom a contract shall be instituted in any court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 20 1970 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ferozepur Ice Manufacturers' Associatio ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-20-1970

Reported in : [1972]84ITR607(P& H)

..... determination of the question of law referred to us, the only point that needs consideration is whether the association formed by the ice manufacturers is a ' partnership' within the meaning of section 4 of the indian partnership act or a mutual association brought about to safeguard their interests and it did not carry on any trade or business activity and thus earn any income ..... the association formed by the ice manufacturers in the present case was not a partnership concern, as it was not carrying on any business activity within the meaning of section 4 of the indian partnership act, and as such it was not liable to be taxed under the indian income-tax act, 1922. the answer to the question referred to us is, therefore, in the affirmative ..... , profits and gains as alleged by the assessee. ' partnership' has been defined in section 4 of the partnership act, which says:' partnership is the relation between persons who have agreed ..... getting interested in other concerns for the manufacture and sale of ice : held, that, on the facts, the test of partnership was fully satisfied in this case and the partnership was entitled to be registered under section 26a of the indian income-tax act, 1922. ' 18. it is clear from the head-note itself reproduced above that in that case the firm was itself .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 1970 (SC)

SaifuddIn Hussinbhay Siamwala Vs. the Burma Cycle Trading Co.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-13-1970

Reported in : (1971)3SCC881

..... can be allowed to be adduced on matters which are neither pleaded nor put into issue. it is quite clear that section 69(3) of the indian partnership act had no applicability in such circumstances and the high court was in error in going into this matter at all.7. the allegations in the eviction petition ..... is whether the present suit for eviction under the provisions of the madras buildings (lease and rent control) act, 1960, hereinafter called the act, was barred by virtue of the provisions of section 69(3) of the indian partnership act owing to the non-registration of the firm of which the four appellants are the partners.2. the ..... it was held that the high court could not have decided the case on the basis of the bar contained in section 69(3) of the partnership act there can be no doubt and it has not been disputed that the order of the rent controller had been correctly made.8. the appeal is ..... be said that all the appellants were entitled to the possession of the building within the meaning of section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the act.5. section 69 of the partnership act, to the extent, it is relevant is in the following terms:69. (1) no suit to enforce a right arising from a ..... the register of firms as partners their petition for eviction was not maintainable under the act since it was a proceeding to enforce a right arising out of a contract within the meaning of section 69(3) of the partnership act. he even expressed the view that although the landlords of the premises in question .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 1970 (SC)

Agarwal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-07-1970

Reported in : (1970)2SCC48

..... twenty. if they exceed twenty he cannot register the partnership, as such a partnership contravenes section 4(2) of the indian companies act, 1913.8. section 2(6-b) of the act provides that the expression firm partner and partnership in the act have the same meaning respectively as in the indian partnership act, 1932.section 4 of the partnership act, 1932, prescribes: 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.persons who have entered into partnership with one another are called individually partners ..... a coparcener, even when he is the karta, entering into partnership with others in carrying on a business is well settled. the partnership that is created is a contractual partnership and is governed by the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932. the partnership is not between the family and the other partners; it is a partnership between the coparcener individually and his other partners. the coparcener is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 1970 (SC)

L. Debi Prasad (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Tribeni Devi and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-18-1970

Reported in : AIR1970SC1286; (1970)1SCC677; [1971]1SCR101

..... could have only happened if shyam behari lal had been adopted by gopal das. exhs. a-352 and 356 are two applications made for registration of . a firm under the indian partnership act, 1932. the first application was made on march 26, 1936. it was returned with some objection and the second application was made on may 4, 1936. both these applications bear ..... son is on shyam behari lal. but as observed by the judicial committed1 of the privy council in rajendrao nath holder v. jogendro nath benerjee and ors. 14 moore's indian appeals p. 67 that although the person who pleads that he had been adopted is bound to prove his title as adopted son, as a fact yet from the long ..... the matters before it, the court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. hence if after taking an overall view of the evidence adduced in the case, we are satisfied that the adoption pleaded is true, we .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 1970 (SC)

Agarwal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Uttar Pradesh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-07-1970

Reported in : AIR1970SC1343; [1970]77ITR10(SC); [1971]1SCR237

..... twenty. if they exceed twenty he cannot register the partnership, as such a partnership contravenes section 4(2) of the indian companies act, 1913.8. section 2(6b) of the act provides that the expression 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' in the act have the same meaning respectively as in the indian partnership act, 1932.9. section 4 of the partnership act, 1932 prescribes :--'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.persons who have entered into partnership with one another are called individually ..... a coparcener, even when he is the karta, entering into partnership with others in carrying on a business is well settled. the partnership that is created is a contractual partnership and is governed by the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932. the partnership is not between the family and the other partners; it is a partnership between the coparcener individually and his other partners. the coparcener is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 20 1970 (HC)

Challa Appalaswamy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-20-1970

Reported in : [1971]82ITR731(AP)

..... the department requires the assessee to do. in interpreting the relevant clauses in the instrument of partnership, care has to be taken to find out whether such clauses contravene the provisions of section 30 of the indian partnership act, the relevant portion of which reads as under :'30. (1) a person who ..... evident that the profits can be divided between the partners as per the terms agreed upon by them under section 30(2) of the partnership act. the aluminium business and thecrucibles business have been treated as separate units by the assessee-firm-separate accounts have been maintained for each of ..... his conclusion on relevant evidence.'8. the assessee-firm has been constituted under an instrument of partnership, specifying the individual shares of the partners within the meaning of section 26a(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922. it has, under rule 2 of the income-tax rules, applied to the income ..... accordance with the respective shares of the partners he couldin the exercise of powers vested in him impose a penalty under section 28 of the indian income-tax act, 1922, but could not in any case refuse or cancel registration.6. as against the above arguments, the learned counsel, sri ramarao, ..... of the indian income-tax act, 1922, for the assessment year 1960-61 and 1961-62 and under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, for the assessment year 1962-63.3. the question, for its answer, depends upon the interpretation of the relevant clauses of the instrument of partnership. they .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 1970 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, A. P. Vs. Mandyala Govindu and Co.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-19-1970

Reported in : [1971]82ITR926(AP)

..... losses, the partners must be held to be liable to contribute equally to the losses sustained by the firm as provided under section 13(b) of the indian partnership act. no doubt, section 13(b) of the indian partnership act lays down that, subject to contract between the partners, the partners are entitled to share equally in the profits earned, and shall contribute equally to the ..... , is made liable for the losses also in the proportion mentioned in clause 2 or equally with the other partners. that being so, the partnership cannot be said to be void. under section 30 of the indian partnership act, though a person who is a minor according to law to which he is subject may not be a partner in a firm, he may ..... partnership is a condition precedent for entitling the firm to registration. resorting to the application of section 13(b) of the ..... section 26a requires specification of shares in the instrument of partnership, any determination of the share of the partners in the profits or in the losses not with reference to the particular instrument but by resort to section 13 of the indian partnership act would be to supply the omission in the instrument of partnership. specification of shares of the partners in the instrument of .....

Tag this Judgment!


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