Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 1999 Page 1 of about 203 results (0.114 seconds)

Apr 19 1999 (HC)

Krishna Bhagwan Agarwal and Another Vs. Ist Additional District Judge, ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-19-1999

Reported in : 1999(2)AWC1753

..... by vishnu bhagwan. he had no concern with the firm business. it is also a common case of the parties that it was a partnership at will. under the provisions of section 43 of the indian partnership act. a partnership at will may be dissolved by any partner giving notice in writing to all the other partners of his intention to dissolve the firm. the ..... a party but protects the rights of the injured party by keeping intact, where a partner excludes another from the management of the partnership affairs, a case is made out for appointment of a receiver and this doctrine has been acted upon even where the defendant contends that the plaintiff is not a partner or that he has no interest in the ..... partnership firm, or apart from non-cooperation of one of the partners in the management, if the quarrels are such as to occasion a complete deadlock in ..... a nature as to show that he is no longer to be trusted, as for example, he is carrying on trade of his own with partnership property or if there is any mismanagement which may endanger the whole concern or if that partner is acting in a manner inconsistent with his duties and obligations or has excluded other partner from fruits of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 1999 (HC)

Adduru Dasaradarami Reddy Vs. Indian Bank, Madras-body Corporate and O ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-05-1999

Reported in : 1999(6)ALD668; 1999(6)ALT103

..... that:'.....the persons who are individuallycalled partners are collectively a firm, and the name under which their business is carried on is called the firm name, see section 4 of indian partnership act, 1932.' '.....in the absence of the requisiteconsent of the central government, a suit, which is in reality, though not in form, a suit against the maharaja of sirmur, is barred ..... these persons as carrying on business in the names of the firms. 4. order 30, rule 4 of the civil procedure code provides that notwithstanding anything contained in section 45 of the indian contract act, 1872, two or more persons may sue or be sued in the name of a firm under the foregoing provisions and if any of such person die, whether before ..... him to use their names for the purpose of taxation and other things and, therefore, they conceded their request. the partnership deed is a sham and nominal document and it is not binding on the other defendants and was never acted upon. they denied taking of loans from the bank and execution of pronote. the 2nd defendant obtained the signatures and thumb ..... in as no.2740 of 1993, the plaintiff-bank is the appellant.2. the plaintiff-bank viz., indian bank filed the suit for recovery of rs.10,94,047-55 ps. with costs against defendants 1 to 11. the 1st defendant is a partnership firm. defendants 2 to 5 and one late adinarayana reddy are the partners of defendant no.1 firm .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 1999 (HC)

Avula Contractions Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad and Another Vs. Senior Divi ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-02-1999

Reported in : 1999(3)ALD105; 1999(3)ALT236

..... . in these circumstances, to import the definition of the word 'person' occurring in section 3(42) of the general clauses act, 1897, into section 4 of the indian partnership act will, according to lawyers, english or indian, be totally repugnant to the subject of partnership law as they know and understand it to be. it is in this view of the matter that it has been ..... consistently held in this country that a firm as such is not entitled to enter into partnership with another firm or individuals ..... has not given legal personality to a firm apart from the partners.....'15. in m. sitaram reddy v, indian railways : 1995(1)alt14 , a learned single judge of this court held :'... it is relevant to note, a partnership firm does not have a separate legal identity and every partner of the firm represents the firm.....'16. similarly, in margadarsi bore wells v ..... is based on english law and we have also adopted the notions of english lawyers as regards a partnership firm.'it was also held :'it is clear from the foregoing discussion that the law, english as well as indian, has, for some specific purposes, some of which are referred to above, relaxed its rigid notions and extended a limitedpersonality to a firm .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 17 1999 (HC)

S. Kireetendranath Reddy Vs. A.P. Transco, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad an ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-17-1999

Reported in : 1999(5)ALD398; 1999(5)ALT47

..... has gained through its human agency. but similar treatment cannot be extended to a no-legal person. 17. section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932, defines the terms 'partnership','partners', 'firm' and 'firm-name'. it reads: '4. definition of 'partnership':--'partnership' is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them ..... the learned standing counsel in my considered opinion, is not well-founded. under section 14 of the indian partnership act, goodwill of the business is the property of the firm, the term 'goodwill' is nowhere defined in the indian partnership act or the repealed provisions of the indian contract act. 'goodwill' is a thing which is very easy to describe but very difficult to define. according ..... far and it is for some purposes that the law has extended a limited personality to a firm which is not a legal entity. 21. chapter iv of the partnership act deals with the relations of partners to third parties. section 18 provides that a partner is the agent of the firm for the purpose of the business of the firm ..... telecommunications, telecom district, hyderabad should have taken into consideration the experience of the constituents of new horizons limited (nhl) which is described as 'in the nature of a partnership between the indian group of companies and the singapore-based company' by the supreme court in para 38 of the judgment, directly fell for consideration. in that case, the department of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 25 1999 (HC)

H.C. Chopra (Retired) (Col.) and anr. Vs. Shri V.C. Mehra

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Aug-25-1999

Reported in : 1999VAD(Delhi)574; 81(1999)DLT937; 1999(51)DRJ156

..... judgment in smt. premlata's case (supra) has already been extracted above. prior to laying down the proper interpretation of the words 'other proceedings' in section 69(3) of the indian partnership act i.e. whether these words had to be construed ejusdem generis or not, the supreme court had made the following observations which appears to have not been given its complete ..... to be by consent of the parties and (ii) that section 69(3) of the indian partnership act, 1932 operated as a bar to the petition because the partnership was not registered. as there was a divergence of opinions in respect of the consequences of section 69 of the indian partnership act, the case was referred to a third learned judge and the majority decision was to ..... section 8(2) of the arbitration act. it was in these circumstances that this vexed question of law ..... the effect that this section of the partnership act did not bar the entertainment of an application under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 29 1999 (HC)

Montari Industries Ltd., New Delhi Vs. Sri Tirumala Venkateswara Agenc ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-29-1999

Reported in : 2000(1)ALD504

..... partners are collectively called afirm, and the name under which their business is carried on is called the firm name, see section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932. order 30 rule 1 of the code of civil procedure enables two or more persons claiming or being liable as partners and carrying on ..... was competent, and a decree could be passed against the firm other than the maharaja of sirmur, and such a decree could be executed against the partnership property and against the other partners by following the procedure of order 25, rule 50 of the code of civil procedure.' 8. as regards the ..... firm in the firm's name, then judgment can only be obtained as against the surviving partners and be enforced against them and against the partnership assets.' the above illustrations show that a suit may be brought under the provisions of order 30 of the code of civil procedure against a ..... to say that the plaintiff is a company incorporated at new delhi and is a manufacturer of pesticides and insecticides. the 1st defendant is a partnership firm with defendants 2 to 5 as its partners. the 1st defendant is a dealer in fertilisers and pesticides and purchases pesticides and insecticides from the ..... title deeds, the question of stamp duty and registration does not arise.9. the next question is whether ex.a3 is a bond. under the indian stamp act, 1899 a bond is defined under section 2(5). the relevant portion of the definition reads as follows:'(b) any instrument attested by a witness .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 06 1999 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jai Bharat theatre

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Oct-06-1999

Reported in : [2001]247ITR295(All); [2000]110TAXMAN297(All)

..... controversy in this case is whether the so-called firm, jai bharat theatre, carried on business and was, therefore, a valid partnership firm. 6. partnership has been defined in the indian partnership act to mean 'the relationship of persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any ..... of them acting for all'. the word 'business' has also been defined to include every trade, occupation and profession. therefore, the ..... that there was no business carried on in the assessment year 1963-64. thus, in order that there may be a valid partnership entitled to registration under the income-tax act, 1961, it has to be engaged in business, i.e., trade, occupation or profession. it is in this light that ..... nowhere mentioned that the aforesaid four persons, viz., ratan kumar, lav kumar, rewati raman and madan mohan, had entered into any partnership and it was that partnership that was letting out the cinema under construction. the lease deed mentions the aforesaid persons as owners of jai bharat theatre. the said ..... income-tax, lucknow, thought that the so called firm, jai bharat theatre, did not carry on any business and, therefore, there was no valid partnership. he, therefore, took the view that the assessee could not be assessed as a registered firm. he, therefore, cancelled the assessment order under section .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 18 1999 (HC)

M/S. Hira Mistan Vs. Rustom Jamshedji Noble and Others

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-18-1999

Reported in : 2000(2)ALLMR618; 2000(1)BomCR716

..... defendant nos. 1 to 10.5. based on the pleadings the following issues have been framed :--1) whether the plaintiffs firm is registered under the indian partnership act, 1932 as alleged in para 1 of the plaint ? 2) whether the original defendant nos. 1 to 10 orally agreed to sell the immoveable ..... contents of the said documents have not been proved. however, oral evidence can be considered, considering proviso 2 to section 92 of the indian evidence act which permits leading of oral or parole evidence regarding the existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is ..... floor of noble building which was not referred to in the agreement in writing. this is because considering sections 91 and 92 of the indian evidence act once parties have reduced their agreement into writing then by virtue of section 92 no evidence either contemporaneous, subsequent or earlier can be permitted ..... though those contents may not be conclusive evidence.18. we then come to the judgment in so far as sections 91 and 92 of the indian evidence act are concerned. in the case of hitchings & coulthurst company v. northern leather company of america and doushkess, 1914 k.b. 907, the ..... can evidence be led in respect of the said agreement requiring handing over of possession of properties aforementioned, considering sections 91 and 92 of the indian evidence act ? (f) was it a term of the oral contract that earnest money would only be deposited if the letter of possession was handed over .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 28 1999 (HC)

Shivalingeshwar Oil Mill, Haveri Vs. Chanaveerappa Basalingappa Kaddi

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-28-1999

Reported in : ILR1999KAR4125; 1999(6)KarLJ320

..... that in these circumstances, to import the definition of 'person' occurring in section 3(42) of the general clauses act into section 4 of the indian partnership act will be totally repugnant to the subject of partnership law. 11. following the decision of the supreme court in dulichand laxminarayan's case, supra, and in other cases ..... .10. in dulichand laxminarayan v commissioner of income-tax, nagpur, the supreme court has ruled that the word 'person' in section 4 of the partnership act means only the legal person, natural or artificial, and that a firm is not a person since it is not an entity or person in law ..... . parthasarathy naidu's, case, supra, laid down several emerging legal propositions. the relevant of them for our purpose are.-'(1) the concept of partnership law is that a firm is not an entity or a person in law but only a compendious mode of designating persons who have agreed to ..... relied on for the judgment-debtor is distinguishable and inapplicable to the facts of the case in hand. in that case, on dissolution of a partnership firm, one of its partner had obtained a money decree against another partner on the basis of the accounts settled between them. during execution of the ..... to their exploitation by the affluent classes and not to any juristic or non-statutory person like a partnership firm or a joint hindu family. therefore, the object and context of the act of 1980 irresistibly leads to the intention of the legislature that any juristic or non-juristic person as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 1999 (HC)

Dharampal and Smt. Pushpa Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-25-1999

Reported in : 1999CriLJ3110

..... of the firm are not mentioned. the petitioners have brought on record a copy of the entry of the register under section 67 of the indian partnership act issued by the office of registrar of firms, a reading of which makes it clear that on 1-4-78 sri chand and dasu mai ..... checking.7. simply because ashok kumar, chhogamal and sunita have been discharged by the trial court, it cannot be presumed that the two petitioners constituted the partnership firm. the burden to establish that the petitioners were the partners of the firm m/s. narendra & co., udaipur, lay on the prosecution. the prosecution ..... p-15. mr. thakur pointing out that in the complaint it has nowhere been stated that the petitioners were incharge and were responsible to the partnership firm for the conduct of business urged that the proceedings against them are abuse of the process of the court and should be quashed.5. learned ..... was ordered that charges shall be framed against dharampal, pushpa devi and sri chand under section 146(1) read with section 3 of the e. c. act. however, by the subsequent order d/- 21-4-84 the trial court reversed its earlier order and discharged sri chand also. it is not understood, as ..... of the proceedings pending against them in the court of addl. chief judicial magistrate, udaipur under section 7 read with section 3 of the essential commodities act, 1955.2. the relevant facts of the case are these. shri khema ram vishnoi, enforcement inspector on 18-11-79 intercepted a tanker of kerosene .....

Tag this Judgment!


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