Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 1985 Page 1 of about 188 results (0.065 seconds)

Sep 30 1985 (SC)

Smt. Saroj Aggarwal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-30-1985

Reported in : (1985)4SCC539

..... july 1956 had retired and the parties mentioned in the deed had decided and agreed to carry on business in partnership and the terms were reduced to writing. clause 6 stated, inter alia, that the partnership was a partnership at will and the indian partnership act, 1932 applied to it. clause 7 stated that shares of the parties in the profits (or losses, if any) should ..... ravi agarwal under the guardianship of his father and sudhir kumar agarwal under the guardianship of his adoptive mother, the present assessee, had been admitted to the benefits of partnership with such rights and liabilities as were provided under section 30 of the indian partnership act. the deed further recited that due to the above changes it had become necessary for fresh deed of ..... partnership to be executed and set out the terms. clauses (2) and (7), inter alia, provided:(2) that the profits and losses of the said firm shall be shared by the ..... be as under:first party . . . . -/5/3 in a rupeesecond party . . . . -/5/3 in a rupeethird party . . . . -/5/6 in a rupee4. the other clauses were the usual partnership clauses not very .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 20 1985 (HC)

Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-20-1985

Reported in : 1986(26)ELT918(Del)

sunanda bhandare, j.1. the petitioners, a hindu undivided family firm registered under the indian partnership act, 1932 carry on the business as exporters of iron ore at margao, goa. the facts of the case as stated in the petition lie in a very narrow compass. the ..... competent to allow the refund of excess amount of duty under article 226 of the constitution of india.5. the duty levied under section 12 of the customs act, 1962 read with the indian tariff act is rs. 10/- per metric tonne in respect of lumpy iron ore and rs. 5/- per metric tonne in respect of iron ore fines. a provisional assessment ..... of duty can be made under section 18 of the customs act, 1962. under sub-section (1)(a) of section 18 provisional assessment can be made where the proper officer ..... fines. the analysis at the time of loading and destination also shows that the goods the petitioners actually exported contained iron ore fines. there is a power under the customs act to make provisional assessment and this practice was agreed upon.9. the writ petition, thereforee, succeeds and is allowed. the orders dated 7-7-1967, 27-4-1968 and 20 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 02 1985 (HC)

Khatuna and anr. Vs. Ramsewak Kashinath, a Partnership Firm and anr.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Jan-02-1985

Reported in : AIR1986Ori1

..... section 59 and so that suit could not be instituted by the firm against the petitioners as required in section 69(2) of the indian partnership act (referred to as the 'act'). further, necessary parties to the suit were not impleaded. the defects in the suit at the time of its institution as referred to above ..... been registered after the institution of the suit. so, the suit is bound to fail for non-registration of the firm under section 69 of the indian partnership act it does not affect the merits of the suit and does not go to the root of the plaintiffs claim. so, it is a formal defect ..... in the petition were as follows :-- a) opposite party no. 1 is a partnership firm which was registered under section 59 of the indian partnership act on 21-8-1979 after the suit was instituted on 22-6-1979. because the partnership firm was not registered on the date of institution of the suit it was likely ..... cannot bring a suit to enforce a right arising out of a contract falling within the ambit of section 69 of the partnership act.' 10. a similar interpretation of section 69(2) of the act was handed down by a division bench of delhi high court in a case reported in air 1978 delhi 255 (shankar ..... the root of the plaintiff's case. 6. on the petition of the petitioner no. 2, the opposite parties disclosed the names of the partners constituting the partnership firm 'opposite party no. 1'. they were, abdul gafur, mahavir prasad agarwalla and smt. shiv kumari devi. patently on 22-6-1979 when the suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 1985 (HC)

L.M. D'Costa Vs. Water Pinto and Ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-22-1985

Reported in : 1986(2)BomCR403

..... for satisfying the liabilities which were unconnected with the business of the firm. secondly, shri kurup contended that under section 47 of the indian partnership act, 1932, after the dissolution of the firm no partner could claim any part of the assets as his own. shri kurup stated that ..... is not the exclusive owner thereof. as already stated, a partner has, undefined ownership along with the other partners over all the assets of the partnership. if he chooses to use any of them for his own purposes he may be accountable civilly to the other partners. but he does not ..... of the bank of america, addressed a reminder to the income-tax officer to return the said amounts to the bank for being deposited in the partnership account of m/s. poinnari recruiting agency, from which account the two amounts had been paid.7. sometime in february 1984 the complainant filed a ..... and rs. 15,000/- with the 2nd income-tax officer, bsd (south) towards the payment of the personal liability of accused no. 1 from the partnership account of m/s. poinnari recruiting agency. thereupon the said supervisor of the bank of america sawardekar addressed a letter dated 7-4-1983 to the ..... the facts leading to the present revision application are the following :---the petitioner herein, who will hereinafter be referred to as 'the complainant', entered into a partnership agreement with respondent no. 1, who will hereinafter be referred to as 'accused no. 1, to carry on business of recruiting employees for posts in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 12 1985 (SC)

Pratibha Rani Vs. Suraj Kumar and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-12-1985

Reported in : AIR1985SC628; 1985CriLJ817; 1985(1)Crimes614(SC); [1985]155ITR190(SC); 1985(1)SCALE458; (1985)2SCC370; [1985]3SCR191

..... the relationship of husband and wife for the simple reason that the concept of partnership is entirely different from that of the husband's keeping the stridhan in his custody. section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (hereinafter g referred to as the 'partnership act') defines 'partnership' thus:partnership' is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profit 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 ..... her properties to her husband for carrying on a partnership business in accordance with the provisions of the partnership act. thus, in our opinion, it cannot be said that a bare act of keeping stridhan property in the custody of the husband constitutes a partnership and, therefore, a criminal case under section 406 ipc is not maintainable. it is not necessary for ..... unless he obtains the tacit consent of his wife. when the essential conditions of a partnership do not exist the mere act or factum of entrustment of stridhan would not constitute any co-ownership or legal partnership as defined under section 4 of the partnership act.27. to sum up the position seems to be that a pure and simple entrustment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 26 1985 (HC)

Preethi Creations Represented by Partner P. Ramadas Vs. T.A.P. Enterpr ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-26-1985

Reported in : (1987)1MLJ353

..... and has failed to appear;provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the provisions of section 30 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (9 of 1932).(2) where the decree-holder claims to be entitled to cause the decree to be executed against any person other than ..... conditions laid down in that section are present. the said provision cannot be applied to the individual property of a partner in a suit against the partnership firm. the proposition had been considered by the judicial commissioner of kutch in the case reported in shanthilal v. pranlal a.i.r. 1952 kut 47 ..... hence in view of order 21, rule 50, c.p.c., the individual property of a partner can be attached before judgment in a suit against the partnership. in support of this contention the case reported in bharat survodays mills v. mohatta bros. : air1969guj178 , is cited. in that decision it has been ..... .10. just as there are provisions in the code of civil procedure for proceeding against the property of the partners for realising the decree against the partnership firm, there is no provision under order 38, rule 5, c.p.c., for passing an order of conditional attachment of the property of the ..... the following reasons:(1) an order of attachment before judgment can be passed only in respect of the properties of the respondent,, which is the partnership firm;(2) the property sought to be attached is an individual property of a partner of the firm and the same cannot be attached before judgment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 27 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rao and Company

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-27-1985

Reported in : (1986)52CTR(Bom)70; [1986]161ITR806(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN452(Bom)

..... m/s. rao family society, which carried on the business of running the said cinema houses on the appointed day, was a body which would have been recognised under the indian partnership act or the law of partnership in india as a partnership, had it been functioning in india, and the second question is whether, even assuming that the said body did constitute a ..... , provided that the joint family will be governed, managed and represented by the seniormost male member who is capable under civil law. the relevant portion of section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932, runs as follows :'4. ' partnership ' is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them ..... observed as follows :'... the rao societies familiar, as stated earlier, was an association of persons and the facts show that it was more or less akin to a partnership known to the indian law.'8. on the basis of this conclusion, the tribunal held that the conditions which the assessee had to fulfil in order to get the benefit of the concession ..... contained in paragraphs 9, 16 and 17 of the dadra and nagar haveli and goa, daman and diu (taxation concessions) order, 1964 ?'2. the assessee is a partnership firm registered under the income-tax act for the assessment year 1965-66 onwards. the assessment years with which we are concerned are the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67,1967-68 and 1968 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 1985 (SC)

Saroj Aggarwal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-30-1985

Reported in : AIR1986SC376; (1985)49CTR(SC)183; [1985]156ITR497(SC); 1985(2)SCALE803; [1985]Supp3SCR209; 1986(1)LC572(SC)

..... july, 1956 had retired and the parties mentioned in the deed had decided and agreed to carry on business in partnership and the terms were reduced to writing. clause 6 stated, inter alia, that the partnership was a partnership at will and the indian partnership act, 1932 applied to it. clause 7 stated that shares of the parties in the profits (or losses, if any) should ..... ravi agarwal under the guardianship of his father and sudhir kumar agarwal under the guardianship of his adoptive mother, the present assessee, had been admitted to the benefits of partnership with such rights and liabilities as were provided under section 30 of the indian partnership act. the deed further recited that due to the above changes it had become necessary for fresh deed of ..... partnership to be executed and set out the terms. clause (2) and (7), inter alia, provided:(2) that the profits and losses of the said firm shall be shared by the ..... be as under:first party -/5/3 in a rupee second party -/5/3 in a rupee third party -/5/6 in a rupee 4. the other clauses were the usual partnership clauses not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 1985 (HC)

Jani Nautamlal Venishankar, Wadhwan Vs. Vivekanand Co-operative Housin ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Apr-29-1985

Reported in : AIR1986Guj162; (1985)2GLR1264

..... that it envisages no uniform method of issuing notice of retirement to all those who have dealings with the firm before and after the retirement. what s. 32 of the indian partnership, act does is to remove the distinction between public notice and private notice. it enacts that public notice would be sufficient both in the case of the old customers as well ..... enacting it, the previous law on the subject and the mischief which the statute intended to cure should be looked into. under the law as it stood prior to the indian partnership act an active partner who had retired from a firm could continue to remain liable for the debts contracted subsequently by the continuing firm unless those who had previous dealings with ..... of such fact. mr. shah for the appellant on the other hand contended that requirement of issuance of public notice of retirement as contemplated by s. 32(3) of the indian partnership act is not a condition precedent for exonerating the retiring partner from his liability regarding transactions undertaken by the remaining partners after the retirement of outgoing partner and that if it ..... jointly and severally with other partners to make good the suit claim as no public notice of the appellants retirement was published as required by s. 32(3) of the indian partnership act and consequently, the decree passed against defendant no. 3 jointly with other defendants is wholly sustainable. we may mention at this stage one development that took place at the time .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 23 1985 (TRI)

Vee Kay Enterprises Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh

Decided on : Mar-23-1985

Reported in : (1985)14ITD187(Chd.)

..... and haryana high court, a full bench decision in the case of nandlal sohanlal v. cit [1977] 110 itr 170, in income-tax matters we should not resort to the indian partnership act, 1932, etc.3. after taking into consideration the rival submissions and going through the documents and case law cited by the two parties, i am unable to confirm the action ..... partners and other third parties.... (p. 693) in the instant case, evidence regarding share is available within four corners as it is to be as per the indian partnership act, as per clause 24 of the partnership deed and as per section 13, it is to be equal.similarly, reliance of the learned departmental representative on rai bahadur jodha mai ghungar mai's case ..... .... (p. 89) no such defect was pointed out by the ito. then, in the instant case, it is specifically mentioned in clause 24 of the partnership deed that the partnership shall be governed by the provisions of the indian partnership act. coming to the case of kylasa sarabhaiah (supra), what was held regarding specification of share, read as under : (v) that the word 'specifying' was ..... that the two partners meant to have equal shares, which is apparent from clause 24, given above, that 'in respect of matters not mentioned herein, the partnerships shall be governed by the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932'. then conduct of the assessee as well by contributing absolutely equal capital which is in a sum of rs. 18,860 by both the partners .....

Tag this Judgment!


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