Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 1992 Page 1 of about 164 results (0.081 seconds)

Jul 17 1992 (HC)

Kantilal Jethalal Gandhi Vs. Ghanshyam Ratilal Vyas

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jul-17-1992

Reported in : AIR1994Guj56; (1992)2GLR493

..... due payable to an unregistered firm, though dissolved, would be hit by the relevant provisions contained in s. 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (the 'act' for brief).4. it would be quite proper to look at s. 69 of the act in order to understand the challenge made to the impugned order passed by the learned trial judge. it reads:'effect of non ..... upon an unregistered partnership acquiring property or assets. all that it does is to make a suit instituted by an unregistered ..... an unregistered partnership making contracts either between the partners inter se or with some third party, nor ..... the continuance of the partnership. hence where an unregistered partnership has been dissolved, money due to the partnership from a third party in respect of dealing between him and the partnership during its subsistence can be recovered by means of a suit.'in the course at its judgment, it has also been held:'it is to be noticed that the partnership act places no prohibition upon .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 23 1992 (HC)

Deorah and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Jun-23-1992

..... there is, however, no agreement to treat the firm as continuing notwithstanding the death of a partner, the partners have no option to treat the firm as continuing. under the indian partnership act, 1932, the firm gets dissolved and the income-tax officer is not entitled to ignore this consequence. there is nothing in the language of section 187, 188 or 189, according ..... persons. his decision was confirmed by the superior authorities including the tribunal, but the high court overruled the same. it was argued for the revenue that section 42 of the indian partnership act, 1932, which stipulated, inter alia, that subject to contract between the partners a firm is dissolved with the death of a partner, applies only to a ..... of them died, the death being followed by taking in new partners. by virtue of section 2(23) of the act, the expressions 'firm', 'partner', 'partnership', have the same meaning as assigned to them in the indian partnership act, 1932. according to the definition, partnership is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any ..... that pursuant to the wishes or the directions of the deceased partner the surviving partner may enter into a new partnership with the heir of the deceased partner, but that would constitute a new partnership. in this light section 31 of the indian partnership act falls in line with section 42 thereof.' (emphasis supplied).19. the supreme court held that for the relevant assessment year .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 1992 (HC)

Patodia and Co. Vs. the Bombay Woollen Mills Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-22-1992

Reported in : 1992(22)DRJ611

..... which included interest up to the date of filing of the suit together with pendente l(2) whether the plaintiff firm is registered under the indian partnership act and shri moti lal patodia is shown as a partner in the register of firms(3) what were the terms of appointment of the plaintiff ..... is plaintiff's suit for recovery of rs. 2,33,249.00. the facts alleged in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. it is further averred that in july, 1976 the defendant appointed the plaintiff as its agent for sale of knitting yam manufactured ..... to the plaintiff. in the instant case the alleged liability of the defendant towards the sole proprietorship concern arose before april-may, 1977 when the partnership was not in exisience. i would have in the normal circumstances dismissed the suit of the plaintiff but having regard to the fact that the above ..... plaint does not disclose as to how the alleged dues of the sole proprietary firm of shri moti lal patodia can be recovered by the partnership, which did not exist when the alleged liability of the defendant arose towards the proprietary concern.having regard to the facts, as appear from the ..... which took place between the parties from april 1977 and onwards i.e. after the plaintiff was registered with the registrar of firm as a partnership concern, no amount is outstanding from the defendant to the plaintiff rather some amount has been paid in excess by the defendant which appears to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 1992 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.M. Mehta and Bros.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-30-1992

Reported in : [1995]214ITR716(Bom)

..... nor (save where the property consists of land) even a writing is absolutely necessary;. . . .' 7. it may be noted that there is no provision in the indian partnership act corresponding to the above provision of the english act. 8. the case of malabar fisheries co. : [1979]120itr49(sc) pertains to the legal position obtained upon dissolution of the firm under section 48. it holds ..... upon retirement of a partner, but has taken place during the subsistence of the partnership. sections 14, 15, 29 and 48 of the indian partnership act, 1932, section 5 of the transfer of property act and section 17(1)(b) of the indian registration act, 1908, fall for scrutiny. 5. no doubt, a partnership firm is not, in a strict sense, a legal entity, and is a compendious ..... that case, the assignee gets only a right to receive the share of the profits of the assignor under section 29(1) of the partnership act. 6. section 22 of the english partnership act, 1890, introduces a legal fiction whereby partnership realty is to be treated as movable property as between the partners inter so. despite this provision, it has been held there that when ..... .g., it can acquire and own property for the purposes of its business either by regular purchase or by a contribution of a partner. sections 14 and 15 of the partnership act, 1932, make this position clear. since the firm is not a legal entity, the property no doubt vests in the partners and in that sense every partner has an interest .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 1992 (HC)

Adwave Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Dec-08-1992

Reported in : 2003(25)DRJ455

..... chief secretary; while the defendant no.3 is the commissioner of police, delhi administration, union territory of delhi.(2) the plaintiff is a partnership firm, registered under the indian partnership act, carrying on business inter alias of construction of building and publicity agents. ms. komal g.b. singh is one of the partners and ..... and ms. komal g.b. singh. learned counsel for the defendants could not point out anything on record to show that the plaintiff was not a registered partnership firm and ms. komal g.b. singh was not competent to file this suit. this issue is, thereforee, decided in favor of the plaintiff. issue no ..... . my findings on the issues are as follows:- issue no. 1:- (13) learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the plaintiff is a registered partnership concern in which ms. komal g.b. singh is one of the partners, competent to file this suit. he has referred to the statement of ms ..... written statement were denied. (10) the pleadings gave rise to the following issues, framed on 6.2.1986:- 1. whether the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm and ms. komal g.b. singh is a registered partner competent to file the present suit? opp. 2. whether the plaintiff executed the total work ..... of filing a written statement. it has been pleaded by the defendants (hat it was not known to the defendants whether the plaintiff is a partnership concern and ms. komal g.b. singh is competent to sign and very the suit. it was admitted that the work with regard to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 25 1992 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram Bilas Purshottam Dass

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-25-1992

Reported in : (1992)104CTR(All)282; [1993]200ITR461(All)

..... affect the continuity of the firm. this much follows from section 42(c) of the indian partnership act. the position is, however, different when a firm consists of only two partners because the moment one out of the two partners dies, the firm automatically and inevitably comes to ..... of the erstwhile firm. the other relevant consideration is whether the death of a partner resulted in the dissolution of the firm.12. now, under section 42(c) of the indian partnership act, the death of a partner automatically brings about a dissolution of the firm unless there is a contract to the contrary, namely, that the death of a partner shall not ..... not contain any stipulation to the effect that the firm will not dissolve on the death of one of the partners, but, by virtue of section 42(c) of the indian partnership act, 1932, the firm stood dissolved, the firm which took over the business after the dissolution of the erstwhile firm, could not be said to be a reconstituted firm and section ..... the firm. in cit v. seth govindram sugar mills : [1965]57itr510(sc) , the supreme court while commenting upon section 42 of the indian partnership act ruled (at page 515) :'section 42(c) of the partnership act can appropriately be applied to a partnership where there are more than two partners. if one of them dies, the firm is dissolved ; but if there is a contract to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 10 1992 (HC)

M/S. Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works and Others Vs. Purushottam and Other ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-10-1992

Reported in : AIR1993Bom30; (1992)94BOMLR541; 1992(2)MhLj1260

..... laid down therein are also inapplicable. 12. for deciding the aforesaid question the relevant provisions are to be found in sections 14 and 15 of the indian partnership act. section 14 deals with the property of the firm. it stipulates that the property of the firm will include all property, rights and interest in ..... corporation v. the commissioner of income-tax, kerala, : [1964]51itr711(ker) . if expressed the view that reading sections 58 and 59 of the indian partnership act together a firm cannot be said to be registered when the statement prescribed by section 58 and the required fee are sent to the registrar and that registration ..... of the conditions is fatal to the suit. this court as well as the apex court had various occasions to consider sec. 69(2) of the indian partnership act and the recentones can be cited in order to show how the provision was construed. in gandhi and co. v. krishna glass pvt. ltd., air ..... therefore, the firm was not registered on the date the suit was filed. 9. it would be worth-while to reproduce section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, which deals with the effect of non-registration. it reads as under: '69(2). no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be ..... one of the issues answered by the learned trial courtrelated to the registration of the plaintiff no. 2 as a firm under the indian partnership act. relying upon exh. 81 which is the certificate of registration of the firm, it was held that the firm was registered under section 58(1) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 1992 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Manickbag Garage and Another

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-29-1992

Reported in : ILR1992KAR2827; [1993]200ITR114(KAR); [1993]200ITR114(Karn)

..... him as a partner; but it does not render a minor a competent and full partner. for that purpose, the law of partnership must be considered, apart from the definition in the income-tax act. section 30 of the indian partnership act clearly lays down that a minor cannot become a partner, though with the consent of the adult partners he may be admitted to ..... the benefits of partnership. any document which goes beyond this section cannot be regarded as valid for the purpose of registration. registration can only ..... -fledged partners. he has further followed the direction of the inspecting assistant commissioner under section 144b of the income-tax act ('the act') that the minors have been made to share the losses suffered by the firm which is prohibited under the partnership act and hence directing him to refuse registration. on appeal, the commissioner (appeals) has confirmed the order of the income- ..... the other partners, has separate and real existence; he is governed by the terms of the partnership deed; his rights and liabilities are governed by the terms of the contract and by the provisions of the partnership act; his liability to third parties for the acts of the partnership is co-equal with that of the other partners; the other partners have no concern with .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 18 1992 (HC)

Vijayanagar Syndicate Vs. B.C. Narayan

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-18-1992

Reported in : ILR1993KAR1104; 1992(3)KarLJ291

..... of civil procedure. regarding the second point formulated by it the trial court has observed that the plaintiff failed to fulfil the mandatory requirements of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act. 8. the petitioner - m/s. vijayanagar syndicate in all the above petitions have challenged the findings arrived at by the trial court on first and second points as aforesaid. the ..... legally recognised person at all such a plaint must be regarded as nullity. in purushottam & co v. manual & sons : [1961]1scr982 the supreme court has held:- 'section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932, hereinafterreferred to as the act, states that:- ' 'partnership' is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them ..... suit. section 69(2) of the act reads thus:- 'no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf ..... when the suit has been brought in the name of partnership firm sri v. varadarajuiu should be deemed to be as one of the partners suing and since his name was not shown in the register of firms as a partner on the date of institution of suit, section 69(2) of indian partnership act constitutes a clear bar to the maintainability of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 1992 (HC)

Kukreja Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-09-1992

Reported in : [1993]202ITR257(Bom)

..... decision in badri narain kashi prasad v. addl. cit : [1978]115itr858(all) . the five judge full bench held that under the general law of partnership under the indian partnership act as well as under section 187 of the income-tax act, 1961, in the case of reconstitution of a firm, it retains its identity and is assessable in respect of the entire previous year. all ..... the allahabad high court, the supreme court observed (at page 777) : 'in view, however, of the scheme of chapter xvi of the act, we are unable to agree; if we were left with the general position under the indian partnership act, we might have agreed. that decision of the high court, however, did not deal with the controversy....' 9. this decision of the supreme ..... act. it may be a registered firm or an unregistered firm. in either case, it is subject to tax. registration depends ..... subscribe to the view taken by the allahabad high court. 11. a perusal of the relevant provisions of the act itself will go to show the fallacy in the view taken by the allahabad high court. under the income-tax act, 1961, a partnership firm is a taxable entity distinct from its partners. it is an assessee under section 2(7) of the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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