Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 1997 Page 1 of about 263 results (0.100 seconds)

Jul 03 1997 (HC)

Harbans Singh Vs. Firm Sunder Mal Sat Pal

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-03-1997

Reported in : (1997)117PLR882

..... . if issue no.1 is proved, whether the execution of both the pronotes or either of them is without consideration? opd4. whether the plaintiff firm is duly registered under the indian partnership act and shri chet ram is one of the partners? opp5. whether the plaintiff firm is a money lender? if so, its effect? opd6. whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest ..... /- to the plaintiff firm.3. the defendant contested the suit taking up various pleas like plaintiff firm carrying on business of money lending but having not been registered under the indian partnership act and the suit being not within limitation. on merit, it was denied that the defendant executed a pronote on 4.2.1975 as alleged by the plaintiff.4. on the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 1997 (SC)

Sharad Vasant Kotak and ors. Vs. Ramniklal Mohanlal Chawda and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-17-1997

Reported in : AIR1998SC877; 1998(2)ALLMR(SC)57; JT1997(10)SC174; 1997(7)SCALE640; (1998)2SCC171; [1997]Supp6SCR543

..... presence and have solemnly affirmed that the particulars furnished therein are true.name of attesting witness designation address and seal, if available before me (price re. 1)form 'e'indian partnership act, 1932notice of change of constitution or dissolution of firm(see rule 4)firm regn. no. and datefirm name...registered address....partners in the above named firmwe, being agents ..... firms(see rule 3)we, the undersigned, being partners, hereby apply for registration as a firm and for that purpose supply the following particulars pursuant to section 58 of the indian partnership act, 1932 : --note 1. - for the registration of each firm a separate application is necessary. accordingly the applicants should apply in this application only particulars of the finn ..... in the high court of judicature at bombay on the original side. initially in the plaint, the constitutional validity of section 69(2a) of the indian partnership act (hereinafter called the 'act'), as amended by maharashtra act, was not raised. the 1st respondent moved a chamber summon no. 301/97 seeking permission of the court to carry out certain amendments to the ..... ) register of firmsfirm no.....name :...business : ... number of date of nature of remarks entry entry entry< .......----form 'h'(see rule 17)certificate of registration(national emblem) the indian partnership act, 1932 (act no. ix of 1932)registration no....it is certified that a firm by name...with its head office at...has this day been duly registered under the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 07 1997 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Fazal HussaIn and Sons

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-07-1997

Reported in : [1998]233ITR32(All)

..... a partner on his becoming insolvent, or dies or a minor becomes major. . .10. under section 30(1) and (2) of the indian partnership act, a minor cannot be a partner. he can be admitted to the benefits of the partnership. on attaining majority, if he so elects, he, under section 30(5), becomes a partner. his share is the same to which he ..... fresh agreement. that is why no fresh agreement or instrument is needed.12. the income-tax act makes a departure in the treatment of minors qua partnership. section 2(23) of the act says ;'2. (23) 'firm' , 'partner' and 'partnership' have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the indian partnership act, 1932 (ix of 1932) ; but the expression 'partner' shall also include any person who, being ..... to be a partner, entitled to all the benefits conferred on a partner by the act. . . when a minor becomes major, and on his opting becomes a partner within the meaning of the indian partnership act, no change occurs in the constitution of the firm under the it. act. the instrument of partnership evidences the same number and identity of partners as before. . . in view of the ..... fact that the i.t. act deems a minor to be a partner, there can be no change in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 1997 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jagdish Chand Walia and Co.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-29-1997

Reported in : [1998]234ITR595(P& H)

..... cannot be said that the actual physical handling of liquor by a non-licensee partner was necessary so as to invalidate his entry in the firm, section 9 of the indian partnership act further lays down that the partners are bound to carry on the business of the firm to the greatest common advantage, to be just and faithful to each other and ..... only to bring finance and did not actively participate in the conduct of the business.26. it has been seen that all the partners of a partnership firm have the authority under section 12 of the indian partnership act to take part in the conduct of the business of the firm. every partner has also a duty to attend to the business of the ..... the parties to the agreement, with a view to sharing its profits, the provisions of section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932, will apply.7. section 12 of the said act specifies the provisions in respect of the conduct of the business of the partnership. it reads as under :'12. the conduct of the business.--subject to contract between the partners,-- (a) every partner ..... fact that he is a partner. carrying on of a business is essential for the existence of a partnership. in other words, the actual existence of a business carried on by the partners is essential to constitute a partnership.6. section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932, requires that it is not necessary that the business should be in fact carried on by all .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 09 1997 (SC)

Rashiklal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-09-1997

Reported in : AIR1997SC4389; [1998]229ITR458(SC); JT1997(10)SC1; (1998)2SCC49; [1997]Supp6SCR331

..... definition of 'partnership', 'partner', 'firm' and 'firm name' :'partnership' is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by ..... has been extended to include any person who, being a minor, has been admitted to the benefits of a partnership. therefore, there is no scope for any argument that even though under the indian partnership act, an huf not being a 'person' cannot be a partner, but the payment of commission to the nominee partner will tantamount ..... and the stranger. such a partnership would be governed by the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932, with the result that if the manager died, the partnership would be dissolved on his death.'23. under the income tax act, 1961, 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' have been given the same meaning as assigned to them in the partnership act. but the expression 'partner' ..... the aforesaid five individuals. this court held that there could no question of granting registration to a partnership purporting to be one between three firms, an huf and an individual. in coming to this conclusion, this court relied on the provisions of indian partnership act wherein, 'partnership', 'partner', 'firm' and 'firm name' were defined in the following manner :'4. .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 1997 (HC)

Uttam S/O Shamlal Jaiswal Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : May-06-1997

Reported in : 1998(1)BomCR437; 1998(1)MhLj333

..... ', stands dissolved and for this proposition there need not be any counter opinion thereon as it is strictly in accordance with the provisions of sections 41 and 43 of the indian partnership act. it appears that the learned secretary - the respondent no. 1 has been swayed by some other irrelevant factors in the matter, such as, whether the petitioner had premises to run ..... in : air1988bom187 , in the matter of abbashbhai k. golwala v. r.g. shah and others, which also deals with the provisions of sections 41, 42, 43 and 44 of the partnership act.however, in this matter, since there were more partners than one, the proposition therein will be of no much help to shri dhorde.30. shri dhorde further relied on a ..... of the respondent no. 2 that the conditions which were imposed by the commissioner for admission of the respondent no. 2 as a partner were against the provisions of the partnership act. it was also contended before the commissioner that the present petitioner had no knowledge and know-how of the business which was being run and that he also had no ..... wanted to derive support from this case to show that even if he might have consented to the conditions of licence and terms of partnership, but since, according to him, the samewere contrary to the provisions of prohibition act and rules thereunder, he could not be said to have been bound by the same. i am afraid, this argument of shri gursahani .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 1997 (SC)

M/S. Progressive Financers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-20-1997

Reported in : AIR1997SC2160; (1997)139CTR(SC)339; [1997]224ITR595(SC); JT1997(2)SC729; 1997(2)SCALE257; (1997)3SCC79; [1997]2SCR280

..... been satisfied. it is also significant to note that this court tacitly approved application of the principle contained in section 13(b) of the indian partnership act that the partners are entitled to share equally in the profits earned and must contribute equally to the losses sustained by the firm and also ..... time, this court disapproved mechanical application of that provision and held that 'in ascertaining whether the application is in conformity with the rules, the deed of partnership must be reasonably construed.' it was also held that the word 'specify' as used in that section and the relevant rule meant 'mentioning, describing ..... to it against the appellant. that case arose under section 26-a of the 1922 act. answering the question whether it was a condition for registration under section 26-a that the instrument of partnership ought to have specified respective shares of partners in losses it was held that 'the ..... and in the circumstances of the case and on a true construction of the terms of the partnership deed, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of registration under section 185 of the income-tax act, 1961, for the assessment year 1968-69? 7. against the orders passed by the ito ..... partners in the profits within the meaning of section 26-a of the act and the assessee-firm was entitled to registration. the relevant circumstances which were taken into account were (1) under clause 3 of the partnership deed the capital allotted to each partner was equal (2) under clause .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 1997 (HC)

Bhagawati Prosad Himatsingka and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Mar-14-1997

Reported in : [1997]227ITR741(Cal)

..... a case as rarest of the rare. the fact that the firm was responsible to pay and the fact that the firm has the same meaning as given in the indian partnership act, 1932, meaning thereby compendious mode of carrying on business by more than one person, it cannot, we are of the view, shock the conscience of a reasonable person, if partners ..... the partners is so bad that without any investigation, such initiation should be quashed. the words 'partner' and 'partnership' by the definition clause contained in section 2(23) of the income-tax act, 1961, mean the same thing as assigned to them in the indian partnership act, 1932, with the addition that the word 'partner' includes any person, who being a minor, has been admitted ..... to the benefits of the partnership. the word 'person' for the purpose of the income-tax act has been included to mean an individual, a ..... the said firm since the payer of interest alone was defined to be the person responsible for paying within the meaning of the appropriate provisions of the said act and under the said act the partnership firm and its partners are different entities and thus the said firm alone was responsible. it was also stated that the complaint so launched does not disclose .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 07 1997 (HC)

Smt. Satya W/O Kailashchandra Sahu and Others Vs. M/S. Vidarbha Distil ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-07-1997

Reported in : AIR1998Bom210; 1998(1)ALLMR601; 1998(2)BomCR627; (1998)3BOMLR340; 1998(1)MhLj789

..... applicants and non-applicants are partners of the firm, m/s. vidarbha distillers, nagpur, registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. the aforesaid firm came into existence in the year 1975. thereafter, on 28th february, 1982, the partnership was re-constituted and a fresh deed of partnership was executed, which is annexed as annexure 'a' to this application. it is pointed out that this ..... either to arbitrate himself or to nominate anyone else.11. in view of this settled law, the question is whether the present clause in the deed of partnership specifically provides that, on failure to act by the named arbitrators; there should be any further arbitration or not. in my view, the agreement does not debar further arbitration. there is no specific ..... firm, therefore each party may be directed to appoint four arbitrators, also requires to be rejected, because there is no such agreement in the deed of partnership and there is no such provision in the act.18. in view of the aforesaid, this application is allowed.19. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted that mr. m.s. deshpande, ..... if the arbitrator named in the arbitration agreement could not function. it is, therefore, submitted that, on account of refusal to act by the named arbitrators, the arbitration agreement contained in clause 11 of the deed of partnership stands exhausted and the parties must necessarily be relegated to their commonlaw remedies. in the alternative, it is pointed out that there .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 09 1997 (HC)

Andhra Steel Corporation Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Hydraulics

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-09-1997

Reported in : (1997)117PLR825

..... limited challenge to the findings recorded by the trial court. however, the pleadings of the parties give rise to the following issues :-(1) whether the plaintiff-firm is registered under indian partnership act and the suing man is its registered partner? opp(2) whether this court has jurisdiction to try this suit? opp(3) whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest? if .....

Tag this Judgment!


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