Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 1998 Page 1 of about 195 results (0.060 seconds)

Oct 16 1998 (HC)

Varadachary and Company, Hyderabad Vs. Superiniteding Engineer (Operat ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-16-1998

Reported in : 1999(3)ALD599; 1999(3)ALT431

..... of the earlier partnership deeds. one such partnership is dated 29-9-1990. under the clause (v) of the said partnership, it is stated that the partnership shall be at will. the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the said partnership being a partnership at will under section 43 of the indian partnership act, the same ..... may be dissolved by any partner by giving notice in writing to all the partners of his intention to dissolve the firm. the respondent counsel has brought to my notice, a notice issued by one of the partners dated 5-7-1996 intimating the board that the partnership ..... the firm by that notice w.e.f. 5-7-1996.6. having regard to these circumstances, the legal position would be that the partnership that entered into agreement stood dissolved with effect from 5-7-1996. as i have already noted above, a separate suit is also filed ..... consequence, as long as the petitioner-firm is ready to execute the work, in terms of thecontract of the year 1987 and the said partnership is not dissolved and it is still continuing by reconstitution from time to time. he further urged that at any rate the said contract ..... by the concerned person for rendition of the accounts. in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the partnership that entered into an agreement with the board still existed as on today.7. now the other short point for my consideration would be, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 1998 (HC)

Y. Baliah Chetty Sons and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-29-1998

Reported in : [2000]244ITR870(Mad)

..... the tribunal has not applied proper tests to determine whether there was a dissolution of the firm. we hold that under section 40 of the indian partnership act the firm was dissolved on the execution of the deed of dissolution and once the dissolution of the firm takes place, the relationship inter se ..... of the partners who went out of the firm would be governed by the deed of dissolution as well as by the provisions of the indian partnership act. the third circumstance that is relied upon by the tribunal is that the accounts of the partners were not settled is a ground to hold ..... partners as well as erstwhile partners would be settled and they would be governed and determined by the deed of dissolution. under section 40 of the indian partnership act, the firm may be dissolved with the consent of all the partners or in accordance with the contract between the partners. in this case, the ..... admittedly, the deed of dissolution was executed on both the occasions and the dissolution took place within themeaning of the indian partnership act, 1932. when there is a dissolution deed, and it was acted upon, it is not open to the partners to go behind or against the terms of the dissolution deed and ..... was executed and on that basis the new firm carried on the business, the rights and liabilities of the partners would be governed by the new partnership deed. the erstwhile partners rights, who went out of the firm would be governed by the deed of dissolution of the firm and, therefore, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 1998 (SC)

Ashok Transport Agency Vs. Awadhesh Kumar and Another

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-31-1998

Reported in : AIR1999SC1484; JT1998(7)SC103; (1998)120PLR810; RLW1999(1)SC191; 1998(5)SCALE730; (1998)5SCC567

..... a.c. basu, the proprietor of ashok transport agency was maintainable. 6. a partnership firm differs from a proprietary concern owned by an individual. a partnership is governed by the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932. though a partnership is not a juristic person but order xxx rule 1 cpc enables the partners of ..... a partnership firm to sue or to be sued in the name of the firm. ..... being sued is the proprietor of the said business. the said provision does not have the effect of converting the proprietary business into a partnership firm. the provisions of rule 4 of order xxx have no application to such a suit as by virtue of order xxx rule 10 the ..... of ashok transport agency, was not a nullity and it could be executed. the learned counsel has submitted that there is a distinction between a partnership firm and a proprietary business and that insofar as proprietary business is concerned, the proprietor of the business is the party to the proceedings and ..... be held to be a nullity and, therefore, it could be executed. feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant, which is now a partnership firm has filed this appeal. 4. shri amarendra sharan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has urged that the high court was in error .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 1998 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Saraf Trading Corporation

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Aug-04-1998

Reported in : (1998)150CTR(Ker)282; [1999]239ITR41(Ker)

..... firm was reconstituted and so, he apportioned the profits of the second period equally among all the partners applying the provisions of section 13(b) of the indian partnership act, 1932.3. for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85, which are not relevant for the purpose of the instant reference, there was no change ..... rightly so. in view of the above discussion, we direct the tribunal to remand the question pertaining to the application of section 13(b) of the partnership act as well to the assessing officer to record a clear finding, in the light of the observations made by us in the body of the judgment.19. ..... behalf and if so, on which date and what profit-sharing ratio was mentioned therein. before coming to the conclusion that section 13(b) of the partnership act will not apply, it was the duty of the tribunal to ensure that a follow-up agreement was made by the partners specifying the share ratio before ..... that since there was a contract for sharing the profits and contributing to the losses of the firm, the provisions of section 13(b) of the partnership act had no application to the facts of the case.13. it is not in dispute that the deed dated september 16, 1981, itself does not specify ..... regard to the manner in which they would share the profit or loss. therefore, the tribunal concluded that the provisions of section 13(b) of the partnership act are not attracted to the facts of the case.6. further, the tribunal held that no material was brought on record to show as to how it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 1998 (HC)

Mahendra A. Dadia and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-17-1998

Reported in : 1998(4)ALLMR115; 1999(5)BomCR124; 1999BomCR(Cri)124; 1999CriLJ4361

..... dr. hasmukhlal chhotalal mody, respondent no. 2 herein, alleging that he is the creditor of the petitioners. petitioner no. 6 is a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act, 1932 having its office and place of business at amrut, hansoti road, carna lane, ghatkopar (west), mumbai- 400 086. petitioner no ..... are concerned they have no concern whatsoever with the petitioner no. 6. it is submitted that they have in fact resigned from the partnership before the issuance of the cheques. mr. jha further submits that time and again it has been observed by the supreme court that ..... writ petition nos. 3690/97, 3691/97 and 3692/97 are said to be not at all concerned with the management of the partnership firm. criminal application nos. 624 of 1998 and 694 of 1998, have been filed by respondent no. 2 for vacation of the ..... judgment in modi cements (supra). after considering the earlier judgment of the supreme court given in electronics trade and technology development corporation ltd., secunderabad v. indian technologists and engineers (electronics) (p). ltd. & another, : 1996crilj1692 , a larger bench of the supreme court has held that the observations made ..... rendered by a bench of two judges) in electronics trade and technology development corporation ltd.,secunderabad v. indian technologists & engineers (electronics) (p). ltd. & another, : 1996crilj1692 . while interpreting section 138 of the act, it firstly observed as under : 'it would thus be clear that when a cheque is drawn .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 30 1998 (HC)

Coromandal Fertilisers Limited, Sec'bad Vs. State of A.P. and others

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-30-1998

Reported in : 1998(6)ALD752; 1998(6)ALT730

..... subsequent cases, the learned judges observed that the expression 'business' was construed in its widest amplitude. reference was then made to the provisions of indian partnership act dealing with the dissolution of firm. the division bench observed thus: 'until liabilities of the firm and its partners are discharged, incomplete contracts are ..... judgment has to be appreciated. the provisions of the partnership act do not come into play in the present case as the assessee is a limited company. moreover, in the two cases on hand, there ..... that decision rests, in our view, on the finding that there was no transfer of business as such and secondly on the provisions of the partnership act. rule 6(h) of apgst rules also swayed the conclusion reached by the learned judges. it is in this back ground, the said ..... 83itr403(sc) , the supreme court construed the expression 'in the course of carrying on business' occurring in section 5(1)(xiv) of the gift tax act. after referring to travancore-cochin case (supra) their lordships observed that the expression 'in the course of carrying on business' means that the gift should ..... at or after the closing, to effect the registration of all the acquired business immovable properties that are subject to registration under the registration act. accordingly, a deed of conveyance was executed by the petilioner-company in favour of the buyer company on 26-12-1997 in respect of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 1998 (HC)

M. Dutta Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jan-29-1998

Reported in : 1998(101)ELT581(Cal)

..... ordertarun chatterjee, j.1. the writ petitioner no. 1 is a firm registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. the writ petitioner no. 2 is a partner of the writ petitioner no. 1. the writ petitioners were customs house ..... ascertain the existence or non-existence of authority.(c) on the basis of imported documents, the writ petitioners prepared the relevant papers which were accepted and acted upon by the department.(d) after clearance, the writ petitioners handed over to the importer and the goods were stored in central warehousing corporation (non- ..... 2 of this regulation is a definition regulation. regulation 2(e) defines the customs house agent which means a person licensed under these regulations to act as agent for the transaction of any business relating to the entry or departure of convenience or the import or the export of goods at any customs ..... conclusion, the additional collector of customs (preventive) had issued the show cause notice as to why penal action under section 112(a) of the customs act, 1962 should not be taken against the writ petitioners. the writ petitioners also received another show cause notice dated 17th of august, 1994 issued under ..... licensed under the provisions of customs house agents licensing regulation, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the regulation'). by such regulation, they were empowered to act as agent for transaction of any business relating to the entry of import or export of goods at any customs house station. the writ petitioners have .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 1998 (HC)

Vinayak Keshav Paranjape Vs. Dena Bank and Others

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-06-1998

Reported in : 1998(4)BomCR186

..... method of issuing notice of retirement to all those who have dealings with the firm before and after the retirement. what section 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 ..... under : thus the law prior to the enacting of the indian partnership act was the same as in england. the law in england can be stated thus; (1) a creditor who had previous dealings with the firm is ..... (3) enacts a liability on the wellknown principle of holding out, and this principle is also recognized in the case ofdissolution under section 45 of the indian partnership act. the division bench alsomade a reference to a.i.r. 1929 pc132, jwaladut r. pillani v. bansilalmotilal, and observed in para no. 9 as ..... acknowledgment of the loan by defendant no. 3 who was his erstwhile partner. 10. the learned trial judge has referred to the provisions of the indian partnership act and since the conclusions of the learned trial judge are based on the interpretation of these provisions, it is necessary to refer to the same. ..... no. 2 the learned trial judge held that plaintiff is entitled to a decree as against all the defendants in view of the provisions of indian partnership act and as such he passed the impugned decree. 6. in this court the factor of advancing loan and written acknowledgment signed by defendant no. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 24 1998 (HC)

Bestochem Formulations Vs. Dinesh Ayurvedic Agencies and Others

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-24-1998

Reported in : 76(1998)DLT972

..... the plaintiff based his suit on the alleged agreement dated 2.6.1987. counsel submitted that thus, the suit is clearly hit by section 69 of the indian partnership act and relied upon the ratio of the decision in lalit kumar & ors. vs . municipal corporation of delhi & anr.; reported in : 56(1994)dlt123 ..... taken by the defendants that the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in view of the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act, as on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff was not a registered firm.4. counsel for the defendants drew my attention to ..... make any difference so far as the bar of section 69 of the indian partnership act is concerned. the provisions of section 69(3)(a) would not also save the present suit from the bar of section 69 of the indian partnership act as because the suit is neither for enforcement of any right or power ..... arising out of a contract falling within the ambit of section 69 of the partnership act. the supreme court found that on the facts of the said case the firm in question was not a registered firm under the indian partnership act and it also could not be denied that the suit was also for ..... it is to be seen and considered as to whether the present suit instituted by an unregistered firm is maintainable or not. section 69 of the partnership act is relevant for the purpose and all the clauses thereof are extracted hereinbelow for proper appreciation of the issue in question:'69. effect of non-registration .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 1998 (HC)

M/S. Charkop Priya Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. M/S. Trade Well Con ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-15-1998

Reported in : 1998(4)ALLMR525; 1998(4)BomCR881; (1998)3BOMLR543; 1999(1)MhLj112

..... and others v. ram narain and others, : air1977all352 the division bench of the allahabad high court was again considering section 69(3) of the indian partnership act. the division bench noted the judgment of the apex court in the case of jagdish chandra gupta (supra). the division bench observed that the expression ..... error of law apparent on the face of the record as the respondents were not a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act as amended in the state of maharashtra and were thus barred under section 69 of the indian partnership act from meeting the claim. the claim petition of the respondents, therefore, it is contended had ..... that these are other proceedings and would be maintainable in view of the exception carved out by sub-section (3) of section 69 of the partnership act. in the case of smt. rampa devi and others v. bishambhar nath puri and others, : air1976all19 , the division bench of the allahabad ..... a suit nor was it filed before any court. hence the bar of section 69 of the partnership act would not apply even if it is assumed that on the relevant date the partnership was not registered. my attention was invited to the judgment of the apex court in the case ..... sub-section (4). it may be rioted that the proceedings arose on an application moved to the court under section 8(2) of the indian arbitration act. in the case of meghraj sampatlall v. raghunath and son, : air1955cal278 a division bench of the calcutta high court was considering what section 69 .....

Tag this Judgment!


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