Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jan-21-1993
Reported in : 200ITR366(Ker)
..... documents of the firm which would show how the profit or loss had been actually apportioned between the partners and also by taking recourse to section 13(b) of the indian partnership act, 1932. we, therefore, hold, with great respect to the learned judges, that the decisions in cit v. ithappiri and george : 88itr332(ker) and united hardwares v. cit : 96itr348 ..... be shared is otherwise ascertainable and that, assuming the section did so require, clause 9 of the instrument satisfied that requirement. reliance was placed on section 13(b) of the indian partnership act.49. the supreme court, at the outset, rejected the contention of the assessee-firm that, if specific reference to individual shares of the partners in the loss of the firm ..... court decisions in kylasa sarabhaiah v. cit : 56itr219(sc) and parekh wadilal jivanbhai v. cit : 63itr485(sc) and also to the provisions under section 13(b) of the indian partnership act, 1932. ultimately, the bench came to the conclusion by applying the dictum laid down in n. t. patel's case : 42itr224(sc) that specification of the individual shares of ..... and give it a limited meaning. the deed itself should contain the specification of both profit and loss and any other provision of law including section 13(b) of the indian partnership act shall not be looked into for the purpose of ascertaining the proportion of loss.33. in united hardwares v. cit : 96itr348(ker) , the firm was constituted of three partners .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-01-1993
Reported in : 204ITR141(Ker)
..... for abdulla koya, husbandof smt. kadishabi. from the statements of smt. kadishabi and smt. ayishabi, it is clear that a partnership as contemplated under section 4 of the indian partnership act has not been constituted.5. the definition of partnership in section 4 of the indian partnership act contains three elements, viz., (i) there must be an agreement entered into by all the partners concerned, (ii) the agreement ..... refused for that reason. furthermore, the assessing officer has found the partnership deed to be not genuine which finding was confirmed by the appellate assistant commissioner ..... with the business as stated by them, a partnership as defined in section 4 of the act is not constituted.6. only a partnership firm is entitled to present an application for registration under section 184(1) of the income-tax act, 1961. since the firm constituted by annexure-d is not a partnership as defined under the indian partnership act, the request for registration has to be .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Apr-07-1993
Reported in : 207ITR1072(Ker)
..... of a firm. it does not cast any new liability on the partners. such liability exists de hors section 188a, having regard to the provisions of section 25 of the indian partnership act which stands recognised otherwise in section 189. the decision of the full bench, in my view, only goes to the extent of interdicting proceedings under the ..... on the petitioners for the dues of the firm, gemini plantations. it cannot be doubted having regard to the provisions of section 25 of the indian partnership act that the partners are jointly and severally liable for all the acts of the firm while he was a partner. therefore, the partners are jointly and severally liable for the tax dues of the firm. in ..... that recovery proceedings could be only against the assessee in terms of the assessment order, without importing the notion of joint and several liability contained in section 25 of the partnership act. the words 'as the scheme of the act visualises proceedings being taken against the firm or the partners only if a liability is imposed under the provisions of the ..... or the partners only if a liability is imposed on them under the provisions of the act, any liability for the tax imposed on a firm as such under the act cannot be treated as the liability of the partners by importing the general principles of partnership law and therefore those dues of the firm cannot be recovered from the partners. in the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-04-1993
Reported in : 1993(2)ALT419
..... is not filed within three years from the date of dissolution of the firm, is not correct.19. section 48(b)(iv) of the indian partnership act is in following terms:'48. mode of settlement of accounts between partners:- in settling the accounts of a firm after dissolution, the following rules shall ..... entitled to share profits.'20. relying upon sub-clause (iv) of clause (b) of section 48 of the indian partnership act, the learned counsel submits that after the dissolution of the partnership, as there are no liabilities for the firm, the properties that remained as assets of the firm have necessarily to ..... not done by the dissolved firm.'22. in narayanappa v. bhaskara krishnappa, : 3scr400 the supreme court, while dealing with the provisions of the partnership act held:'the provisions of sections 14, 15, 29, 32, 37, 38 and 48 make it clear that whatever may be the character of the property ..... appellant/ plaintiff is not pressing the relief for accounting. therefore, for the purpose of mere division of the residual properties after dissolution of the partnership firm, the suit need not be filed within three years from the date of dissolution of the firm. the defendant has not acquired title ..... has not perfected his title to the plaint schedule properties by adverse possesion.18. the learned counsel for the appellant submits that when once the partnership firm is dissolved, the properties of the firm vest in the partners and, therefore, each partner will be entitled for his share in the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-20-1993
Reported in : (1993)95BOMLR412
..... or have been shown in the register of firms as partners in the firm.'22. the plaint sets out that jai hind oil mills are a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act. a partnership firm is not an independent legal entity and merely represents a trade name of the actual partners. the appellants claim that under section 69 of the ..... no. 2, swiss bank.21. the defendants claimed that the suit was not maintainable in view of the bar of provisions of sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act. sub-section (2) of section 69 reads as follows ;'69. (2) no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any c6urt by or on ..... file suit against swiss bank ?yes. (para 12)(2) whether the plaintiff firm was duly registered, and if not, whether the suit was maintainable under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act ?not registered. suit not maintainable. (para.- 13/ 14)(3) whether the documents were presented by credit bank to swiss bank on october 21, 1985 ?yes. (para 15/16)(4) whether ..... filed by defendant no. 1. the facts giving rise to institution of the suit are as follows :the plaintiffs (jai hind oil mills co.) are a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932, and carry on the business of dealing in the manufacture of various types of edible oils and are also engaged in the business of importing and .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jun-18-1993
..... a person who is of the age of majority and who is of sound mind and is not otherwise disqualified is competent to contract. sub-section (1) of section 30, indian partnership act, 1932, states that a person who is a minor may not be a partner in a firm, but, with the consent of all the partners for the time being, he ..... each partner rateably what is due to him on account of capital and then the residue shall be divided among the partners.the expression 'goodwill' is not defined in the partnership act. it has been described as denoting the benefits, arising from connection and reputation, as every positive advantage as distinguished from negative advantage that has been acquired by the firm in ..... shall become a partner in the firm on the expiry of the said six months. the mode of settlement of accounts between partners is prescribed in section 48 of the partnership act. the provision is subject to agreement by the partners. losses shall be paid first out of profits, next out of capital, and, lastly, by the partners individually in the proportion ..... its business. it represents the public approbation which has been won by the business. undoubtedly, goodwill forms part of the assets of the firm or partnership. this is clear from the provisions of section 55 of the partnership act, which states that, in settling the accounts of a firm after dissolution, the goodwill shall, subject to the contract between the partners, be included .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-06-1993
Reported in : 209ITR374(All)
..... granted fresh registration on january 25, 1991, by the registrar of firms under the indian partnership act. the question whether such registration under the partnership act could be granted, is the subject-matter of another writ petition no. 21890 of 1993 filed before this courtwith which we are not concerned in this ..... to the petitioner, respondents nos. 4, 5 and 7 in collusion with each other stealthily manipulated a fresh partnership deed dated july 1, 1990, excluding him from the partnership and including respondent no. 6 in disregard of the mandatory provisions of the indian partnership act. the reconstituted firm, it is averred, has applied for fresh registration in terms of sub-section (8) of ..... road, gonda, and the production unit at kanpur. it is averred that the firm was registered with the registrar of firms under the indian partnership act. it was also registered under section 184/185 of the income-tax act, 1961 (for short, 'the act'), and the registration was allowed for the subsequent years also as contemplated under section 184(7) of the ..... section 184 of the act and the matter is sub judice before the income-tax officer, gonda, the third respondent. the reconstituted firm had also applied and was .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-30-1993
Reported in : (1994)1CALLT108(HC)
..... or notice recorded in the register of firms are prima facie true. the learned trial judge has taken the view that section 58 of the indian partnership act in no uncertain terms provide that any intimation of change of constitution or reconstitution of the firm shall have to be effected by the signature ..... material facts.15. the learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously argued that in view of the presumption raised under section 68(2) of the indian partnership act, the appellants have been able to prove that the appellant no. 1 became a partner of the reconstituted firm and the contents of the intimation ..... appeal which is hotly contested.8. the learned lawyer for the appellants, mr. mahadeb,ghosh has submitted that under section 68(2) of the indian partnership act, a certified copy of an entry relating to a firm in the register of firms may be produced in proof of the fact of the registration ..... relinquishes his share or any part or portion of his share in favour of a new partner, such a relinquishment need not be registered under the indian partnership act. accordingly, with effect from 24th of april, 1989, on the basis of the admission of shri ganesh chandra bose, respondent no. 7, the ..... same. in our view this is not the correct perception of the legal position so far as our law is concerned. section 68 of the partnership act deals with rules of evidence. the first sub-section notes that any statement, intimation or notice recorded in the register of firms shall foe conclusive .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-09-1993
Reported in : (1993)1CALLT407(HC),97CWN894
..... . bhaskar bhattacharjee, the learned advocate for the petitioner, contended that the suit was not maintainable and barred under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act as the partnership was an unregistered one. consequently, the order appointing receiver is without jurisdiction.5. mr. kamalesh bhattacharjee, the learned advocate for the opposite party, raised three-fold contentions viz. ..... interim order is concerned. mr. bhaskar bhattacharjee's argument that the proceeding not being maintainable is founded in the provisions of section 69(1) and (3) of the indian partnership act though mr. kamalesh bhattacharjee has endeavoured to resist a decision on such a point, at an interlocutory stage, amongst others, by urging that a proceeding under section 20 of ..... do not find any necessity for an investigation into the nature of the proceeding under section 30 of the arbitration act as sub-section (3) of section 69 of the indian partnership act clearly attracts the bar created by section 69 to some proceedings other than a suit. this legal position has already been approved by the ..... the arbitration act not being a suit is not covered by sub-section (1) of section 69 of the indian partnership act. factually there is no dispute that the partnership in question is not a registered one.8. upon consideration of the respective submissions on merit, we .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-02-1993
Reported in : AIR1994Delhi226; II(1993)BC45; 50(1993)DLT561; 1993(25)DRJ479
..... plaintiff for recovery of rupees 2,08,200/- against the defendants.2. the brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is a registered partnership under the indian partnership act, 1932, carrying on its business at at 50/ 3, baljit nagar, new delhi. shri des raj son of shri gaila ram is one ..... - after having received the price of the goods if so to what effect ? 4. whether the plaintiff is a registered firm within the meaning of indian partnership act and the person suing is one of its partners? 5. whether suit as framed is not maintainable against the defendants? 6. whether the plaintiff has no ..... as set out in the cause title of the plaint, are vague incorrect, incomplete and wanting in material particulars etc. the suit has been filed against indian petrochemicals corporation ltd. and the dealings took place between the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 at new delhi, where the payments were made. the goods ..... defendants 2 and 3, when defendant no. 1 is an independent entity, being a government company within the meaning of section 617 of the companies act, and defendant no. 3 had no dealings of his own with the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 has no separate legal entity as it is ..... competent courts, having territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter of that suit is valid and enforceable and is not void under section 28 of the contract act.' there is also nothing against public policy which dictates that, because other courts which can also hear the mailer cannot hear it in view of .....Tag this Judgment!