Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 1994 Page 1 of about 195 results (0.094 seconds)

Jan 25 1994 (HC)

Parmanand Vadilal Vasani and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jan-25-1994

Reported in : AIR1994Guj206; (1994)2GLR1634

..... at annexure h to this petition.3. it appears that the competent authority remained totally ignorant of the relevant provisions contained in the indian partnership act, 1932 ('the partnership act' for brief). the position of law emerging therefrom would be that, when a partnership consists of only two partners, on the death of either partner, the firm automatically stands dissolved as there could not be a ..... remain undivided.4. the appellate authority appears to have misdirected himself by erronneously holding that, since the partnership was not registered under the partnership act, its existence could not be recognised. i wish the appellate authority had kept in mind the relevant provisions contained in section 69 of the partnership act before reaching such erroneous conclusion. it is needless to say that registration of a ..... partnership firm thereunder is not compulsory. such registration enables the partnership firm to file a suit with respect to certain transactions connected with the contract with the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 11 1994 (SC)

Mrs. Kavita Trehan and Another Vs. Balsara Hygience Products Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-11-1994

Reported in : AIR1995SC441; JT1994(4)SC519; (1995)109PLR315; 1994(3)SCALE168; (1994)5SCC380; [1994]Supp1SCR340

..... , thus :two questions arise in this suit. the first one being whether the suit is liable to be dismissed in view of section 69 of the indian partnership act, partnership being unregistered on the date of filing of the suit and in case the suit is to be dismissed, the second question would be whether the parties ..... appellants. the suit came to be dismissed on the undisputed ground that it was hit by sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932. indeed, the appellants did not dispute the liability of the suit for such dismissal on the ground of non-registration of the ..... on the date of filing of the suit and as such the suit would be hit by the provisions of sub-section 2 of section 69 of the partnership act. the correctness of this view and the consequent dismissal of the suit are not questioned before us.6. on the second question, the learned single judge ..... orders of the learned sub-judge, 1st class, chandigarh. accordingly, the learned single judge, while dismissing the suit on the ground of non-registration of the partnership, issued the following directions :.plaintiffs are also directed to take out an fdr from a nationalised bank in the sum of rs. 25.40 lakhs in the ..... :.insofar as the first point is concerned, mr. sahai, learned counsel for the plaintiff fairly conceded that the suit is liable to be dismissed as the partnership was not registered on the date of institution of the suit. the position in law is that where the suit is filed by the partners it shall .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 08 1994 (HC)

B.C. Saha Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-08-1994

Reported in : (1994)1CALLT419(HC)

..... this contention cannot be upheld for the reasons stated below.6. sub-section (2) of section 19 of the indian partnership act imposes certain restrictions upon the partners' implied authority. these are statutory restrictions. hence these are binding upon all partners dealing with the ..... 1993. in that deed also there is no provision for submitting a dispute between the partnership firm and a third party to arbitration. the learned state advocate relying upon section 19(2)(a) of the indian partnership act has submitted that the reference to arbitration on the basis of the arbitration clause of ..... was introduced by the first time :'20. that all disputes and differences and questions whatsoever which shall either during the continuence of the partnership or otherwise arise between the partners or their respective representatives or between any partner and the representatives of the other partners touching these presents ..... one, otherwise to three arbitrators, one to be appointed by each partner and the arbitration shall be governed by the provisions of the indian arbitration act or any other enactment relating thereto for the time being in force'.5. it appears from a plain reading of the above paragraph that ..... there was no provision for submitting a dispute between a third party and the partnership firm to arbitration. upon the death of shri b.c. saha, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 1994 (HC)

Ganpati Salt Works and anr. Etc. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Mar-21-1994

Reported in : AIR1995Guj61; (1994)2GLR1697

..... case, there is clear breach of the conditions and the respondent was, therefore, entitled to terminate the lease in respect of the plots in question.11. section 14 of the indian partnership act, 1932 reads as under :--'14. property of the firm. -- subject to contract between the partners, the property of the firm includes all property and rights and interest in property originally ..... defendants 10 to 14 and defendants 1 to 9 equally. in these facts of the case, the supreme court interpreted the provisions of section 14 of the partnership act holding that the whole concept of partnership is to embark upon a joint venture and for that purpose to bring in as capital money or even property including immovable property. once that is done ..... ), it cannot be concluded that the leasehold right in respect of the plots in question would be the, partnership properties, within the meaning of section 14 of the partnership act. in the facts of the case, the financial partner permitted to be inducted in the partnership was with a limited purpose of rendering financial assistance to the business of manufacturing sale etc. and that ..... . the partnershipfirm was, therefore, entitled to be in possession and enjoyment of the said partnershipproperty in accordance with section 14 of theindian partnership act, 1932.9. on careful consideration of the materials on record, i do not find any merit in the submission of mr. shah. under clause 11 of the lease agreement entered .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 1994 (HC)

Magnum Enterprises Represented by Surindra Bantia Vs. the State and Sa ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Aug-12-1994

Reported in : (1994)2CALLT326(HC)

..... person and as such no warrant of arrest or process can be issued against that firm. in this context he referred to section 4 of the indian partnership act. his next contention was that the firm even if a juristic person, though it is not, cannot have any mens rea in an offence under section ..... having been filed. let the affidavit of service affirmed on 3rd february, 1994 be kept on record.2. this revision is at the instance of the partnership firm under the name and style of m/s. magnum enterprises, represented by one surinder bantia, a partner of the firm. the petitioner herein challenged the ..... i cannot agree with the contention of, dr. mukrerjee so far as it relates to the question of sentence. in an offence under section 500 of the indian penal code, provision of alternative sentence is there i.e. either simple imprisonment or fine. so, that contention of mr. mukherjee is of no avail. the ..... the firm is not a juristic person and it cannot have any mens rea in case of cheating, particularly in an offence under section 500 of the indian penal code. this court has repeatedly held that in the absence of mens rea, so far the company or a firm is concrned, no process can ..... its partner sri surinder bantia and the manager of the firm, sri bejoy bahadur singh, alleging an offence against these accused persons under section 500 of the indian penal code. the partner and the manager of the firm in answer to the summons as issued by the learned sub-divisional judicial magistrate, alipore, appeared .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 1994 (HC)

M/S. Dinshaw and Dinshaw and Others Vs. Indoswe Engineers Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-14-1994

Reported in : AIR1995Bom180; 1995(3)BomCR548

..... the learned trial judge framed the following issues:--1. do plaintiffs prove that plaintiff (1) is a firm registered according to the provisions of the indian partnership act? 2. do plaintiffs prove that an amount of rs.l,53,446.20 paise was due to them from the defendants for the works of construction ..... rejecting the amount mentioned in statement no. 4 on the sole ground that the work was not entrusted to the plaintiff. section 70 of the indian contract act reads as follows:'70. where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, ..... do the work, we will have to consider the alternate arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant by invoking section 70 of the indian contract act.18. as far as the first question viz., whether this work has been done or not, though there is denial in the written statement ..... quality and further the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any amount for any work done beyond the estimate and that sec. 70 of the indian contract act is not applicable to the facts of the present case.7. in the light of the arguments addressed before me, the two points that fall ..... is not covered in the estimate. alternatively, it was argued that plaintiffs are entitled to claim this amount by relying on section 70 of the indian contract act. on the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the findings of the trial court. the learned counsel for the respondent contended that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 1994 (HC)

Nanaji S/O Ganuji Bhokre Vs. Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-22-1994

Reported in : AIR1994Bom204; 1994(4)BomCR364; 1994(2)MhLj1277

..... itself would draw the disqualification. here the situation is entirely different. 'firm' is defined under sec. 2m4) of the act which says that the 'firm' means a firm registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. there is no 'allegation that there is in existence any such firm or that the brother of the petitioner ..... itself would draw the disqualification under the section. in short, there being no such material allegation as required under section 73-ff(v) of the act, it must be held that the election officer was in error in rejecting the -nomination paper and the divisional commissioner was also in error in ..... in respect of the rejection of nomination papers in respect of which there is a specific appeal provided for under s. 152-a of the act. secondly, in those decisions there are no orders passed which would bring a cloud on the right of the election tribunal to decide that particular ..... on merits. shri madkholkar, however, takes a strong exception to this case and points out that this was a case under the provisions of income-tax act. he relied upon the judgment reported in someshwar sahakari sahakari karkhana limited, y. shriniyaj patil, : air1992bom457 , which is a decision by the learned single ..... said shop was also closed for the last 3 years. the said appeal was filed under the provisions of the s. 152-a of the act.2. the commissioner, amravati division, amravati passed the order and dismissed the appeal finding that in fact theshop of the said brother of the petitioner .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 03 1994 (HC)

Pandurang N. Vanarase Since Deceased by His Heirs Vs. Janardhan Naraya ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-03-1994

Reported in : 1995(2)BomCR424; (1995)97BOMLR166

..... is fully justified and does not suffer from any infirmity.the learned counsel for the appellants contended that a partnership can be dissolved by an agreement as provided in section 40 of the indian partnership act, 1932 and in this case there is nothing to show that such a dissolution took place. what section ..... 40 of the partnership act says is that the firm may be dissolved with the consent of all the partners or in ..... about management of the immovable properties and that the joint family business was closed long back and now he and second defendant are running a partnership business which belongs to them.then we have the evidence of second defendant who has also given evidence in the same manner like plaintiff.then ..... is entitled to get his 1/6th share in the same. it is stated that even though defendants 1 and 3 formally retired from the partnership the business that was continued was still a joint family business. that even the business which is being done by the first defendant separately is ..... taken in the court below when they were tendered in evidence. they have been marked without objection. to such a situation section 36 of the indian stamp act, 1899 applies. as per that section once a document has been admitted in evidence its admissibility cannot be questioned at any stage of the proceedings .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 03 1994 (HC)

H.B. Vittala Kamath Vs. Krishna Motor Service, Shimoga and Others

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-03-1994

Reported in : AIR1994Kant181; ILR1994KAR473; 1994(1)KarLJ529

..... as a proceeding to enforce the petitioner's right to sue for accounts of the dissolved firm and such a proceeding is exempted from bar under section 69 of the indian partnership act.15. the delhi and madhya pradesh high courts have taken a view similar to the view taken by us.in jagat mittar saigal v. kailash chander saigal, : air1983delhi134 , it has ..... , he must be deemed to be enforcing his right to sue for accounts of the dissolved firm, through arbitration.14. the object of the proviso to section 69 of the indian partnership act is to exempt the right of the partners to litigate for dissolution of the firm or for accounts of the dissolved firm from the ban imposed under sub-sections (1 ..... the authority of the decision in jagadish chandra's case : [1964]8scr50 the proceeding in the present case can straightway be held to be barred under section 69 of the indian partnership act.coming to the two decisions of the allahabad high court, in smt. rampa devi's case : air1976all19 before filing a suit for rendition of accounts and in the alternative for ..... dissolved firm or as only a proceeding to enforce a mere right to proceed to arbitration?if the former view is taken, then the bar under section 69 of the indian partnership act would not affect the proceedings. on the other hand, if the latter view is taken, then the proceedings would be hit by the bar under section 69.9. the learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 27 1994 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Delhi Metal Store

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Oct-27-1994

Reported in : (1995)123CTR(Del)53; [1995]211ITR622(Delhi)

..... apart from the partners. under that common law doctrine even an ordinary change in the constitution which would normally fall within chapter v of the indian partnership act would result in a case of succession. in fact, it will be appropriate to notice that this was exactly the difficulty that arose in the ..... narain kashi prasad v. addl. cit : [1978]115itr858(all) . this full bench ruled that under the general law of partnership under the indian partnership act as well as under section 187 of the act in the case of reconstitution of a firm, it retains its identity and is assessable in respect of the entire previous year. ..... 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.' 13. the above paragraph leaves little room for doubt in our mind that ..... ]136itr379(delhi) with which we are in respectful agreement, we feel that there being no conflict between section 187 and the general provisions of the partnership act, the argument does not survive for consideration. even otherwise, it was never the case of the revenue that in the present case change in constitution ..... that cases of death of a partner. he asserts that the concept of firm under section 187 is different from the one under the partnership act. 9. the first contention is fallacious. it is not a case of mere retirement but of dissolution of the firm and formation of a .....

Tag this Judgment!


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