Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 1999 Page 3 of about 203 results (0.127 seconds)

Jan 07 1999 (HC)

V.K. Kaliappa Gounder Sons Trading as Sun Beedi Traders Represented by ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-07-1999

Reported in : (1999)2MLJ413

..... v.k. kaliappa gounder issuing the notice under ex.a-16, announcing the retirement of the defendant v.k. subramaniam is neither an act authorised by the indian partnership act nor in adherence of the relevant provisions of law and the entries effected into the records maintained by the office of the registrar of ..... to note that such announcement made beyond the capacity of one partner as against the other partner by notice under section 63(1) of the indian partnership act, is simply accepted and carried out by the registrar of firms, without testifying the validity or legality of such a notice and without conducting any ..... have been given either by the retiring partner or by the other partners or by any other partners, as per section 32(4) of the indian partnership act. thus, the statutory requirements should have been scrupulously observed as far as the alleged retirement of the defendant on 31.3.1978 is concerned. ..... of the new firm.71. so far as the legal position regarding retirement of a partner is concerned, it is enshrined under section 32 of the indian partnership act as given below:section 32. retirement of a partner: (a) a partner may retire - (a) with the consent of all the other partners ..... 9. the defence case as set up by the defendant in the written statement is that, the plaintiff is not a registered firm under the indian partnership act; that this defendant was helping the father v.k. kaliappa gounder as his eldest son and improved the said business; that his father was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 1999 (TRI)

Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Associated Builders

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-05-1999

Reported in : (2000)72ITD273(Mum.)

..... at the time of dissolution only when there is no agreement or contract between the partners to the contrary, which is also the position recognised sky section 48 of the indian partnership act. therefore our decision is applicable equally to capital assets as well as stack-in-trade, provided there is a contract between the partners to value them at the time of ..... revenue authorities to discard the same and seek to tax the profit on the notional footing of the market price. in this connection the provisions of section 48 of the indian partnership act were also relied upon as also the order of the madras bench of the tribunal in ito v. preetham pipe syndicate [1993] 44 itd 665. as regards the existence of ..... the partners, the market value can be adopted for assessment purposes. in n. muhammad ussain sahib's case (supra) the question arose under section 48 of the partnership act. now section 48 of the partnership act provides for the mode of settlement of accounts between partners upon dissolution. the section provides for certain rules which are expressly stated to be subject to agreement by ..... absence of an agreement between the partners to the contrary, they can be valued on the basis of the market value at the time of dissolution. section 48 of the partnership act in fact clarifies or makes the position very clear.11. the other reason as to why it is difficult to understand the judgment of the supreme court as laying down .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 16 1999 (TRI)

income Tax Officer Vs. Mohinder Singh Davinder Singh and

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Decided on : Jul-16-1999

Reported in : (2000)73ITD448(Asr.)

..... letting out of a building and realising rents therefrom did not amount to carrying on of business. it was incidental to ownership. the expression used in s. 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932, are "agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them", which implied the existence of a business. there was no business in ..... , 1987, the same was let out to fci on rent. the words 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership deed' are not defined in the it act, 1961 but sub-s. (2) of s. 2 says they have the same meaning as assigned under the indian partnership act. sec. 4 of the partnership act defined "partnership as "partnership" is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business ..... definition that partnership involves an agreement to carry on business. the expression "business" is ..... carried on by all or any of them acting for all". it is seen from this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 1999 (HC)

Suraj Bhan Anil Kumar and anr. Vs. Molu Ram Kapoor Chand

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Aug-12-1999

Reported in : 1999VIAD(Delhi)640; 82(1999)DLT277; 2000(52)DRJ30

..... copy of form-a. 2. in view of the pleadings of the parties an issue was also framed to the effect as to whether the plaintiff is a partnership firm and registered under the indian partnership act, and whether the present suit is instituted by a duly authorised person. the suit was listed before the trial court for recording evidence of the respondent-plaintiff ..... that if a suit is instituted by a unregistered firm such a suit is barred under the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act. however, if the suit is instituted by a firm which is not an unregistered partnership firm but a proprietorship firm, the suit is maintainable and could be proceeded with. it is established from the record that on ..... and, thereforee, the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 69 of the partnership act. in the replication also the plaintiff reiterated the stand that the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm and is duly registered under the provisions of indian partnership act. it was stated in the said replication filed by the respondent-plaintiff that the certified copy of the ..... form-a to prove the registration of the partnership is not available with the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has applied .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 1999 (HC)

Somu and Somu Vessels Merchant Anupparapalayam Vs. C. Arumugham

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-01-1999

Reported in : (1999)2MLJ623

..... discrepancy alone cannot be a ground to non-suit the plaintiff14. for the reasons stated above, i hold that the suit is maintainable under section 69(3)(a) of the indian partnership act. the substantial questions of law nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff. on substantial question of law no. 3, i hold that the suit is not ..... the suit is not maintainable by reason of the provisions contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act?2. whether by virtue of the provisions contained in section 69(3)(a) of the indian partnership act, is not the suit maintainable for the suit claim?3. whether the lower appellate court is right in holding the suit as barred ..... registered. relying upon the above fact, it is contended by the defendant that the suit is not maintainable under section 69(2) of indian partnership act.7. it is no doubt true that under section 69(1) of the act, no suit to enforce right arising from a contact shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of any person suing as ..... in the plaint that the plaintiff's firm has been duly registered. the suit is hit by section 69 of the indian partnership act. the suit is barred by limitation. the transaction were one of sale and purchase. therefore, the debt relief act will not extend the period of limitation. the defendant is not an agriculturist. the copy of the accounts shows that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 1999 (HC)

Sham Sunder Vs. Hari Dev Bansal and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-18-1999

Reported in : (1999)122PLR509

..... in conjunction with the admission of dw1 and the case of the plaintiff. at this stage it will be appropriate to refer to the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932, hereinafter referred to as the act. section 22 of the act provides for the mode of doing act to bind the firm while section 28 relates to the doctrine of holding out as applicable to ..... applied with greater emphasis and more easily. while dealing with a partnership concern, a third party is not expected to verify the records of the partnership or from other concerned authorities as to who are the partners of partnership concern in the normal course of events.16. pollock & mulla by on the indian partnership act fifth edition by r.k. abichandani illustrates the application of this ..... principle as under:-'.....when persons are shown to have acted as partners, the burden of proof is on those who say they were not partners. this ..... from the conduct of the coparcener, who is estopped from denying the character he has assumed and on the faith of which third parties may be presumed to have acted. there being a partnership from the point of view of the general public, it follows that the persons dealing with it will not be affected by a dissolution of which no notice .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 1999 (TRI)

Chhabra Handicrafts Vs. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

Decided on : Sep-16-1999

..... shall be sleeping partners only. unless there is an express agreement, every partner is authorised to take part in the business of the partnership firm under section 19 of the indian partnership act, 1932. therefore, the impugned order is liable to be sustained. 7. it is on record that the appellant-firm has sent few ..... stating that they are sleeping partners and the appellant in appeal no. 245 of 1992 is managing partner and (3) letter intimating registration of the partnership firm addressed to the name of the appellant in appeal no. 245 of 1992. thus, a stand has been taken that the appellant harkirat singh ..... had been working as managing partner and was looking after day-to-day business and affairs of the partnership firm whereas other appellants were merely sleeping partners. also, there is evidence available on record to this effect that the total correspondence on behalf of ..... certificate of foreign inward remittance dated 1-9-1989 certifying that us $ 1,500 was received by the bank on account of partnership firm but the same was not accepted by the adjudicating authority due to non-application of mind, and (4) that the appellant chhabra handicrafts is a ..... buyer, (2) that the appellant sent various fax message and managing partner (appellant in appeal no. 245 of 1992) met the buyer personally on his indian visit to impress upon him the immediacy of remitting the export proceeds, (3) that the appellants banker, i.e., bank of india, moradabad, gave a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 1999 (HC)

Andavar Finance Corporation Vs. V. Murthy and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-07-1999

Reported in : AIR2000Kant236

..... in the written statement, it is not open to the court to go into the question of maintainability of the suit under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act. i had occasion to consider the similar point in r.s.a. 919/95 disposed of on 9-3-1998 wherein i have held that as long ..... of them as the position in law, in our opinion, is clear on a plain reading of sub-section (2) of section 69 of the said partnership act.'4. i have heard the respective learned counsels for the parties.5. the fact that money has been borrowed by the defendant though generally denied in the ..... khan reported in air 1989 sc 1765 to the following effect:'in the present case, the suit filed by appellants is hit by section 69(2) of partnership act, as on the date when the suit was filed, 2 of the partners shown as partners as per the relevant entries in the register of firms were ..... not in fact, partners, one new partner had come in and 2 minors had been admitted to the benefit of the partnership firm regarding which no notice was given to the registrar. the result is that the suit was not maintainable in view of section 69(2). ..... ... ..... a particular name and style carried on business in various items like oils, chemical industry, spare parts and so on and it was that partnership firm which had got common partnership account wherein were reflected the entries assets and liabilities with regard to all business transactions in different items, the firm would be competent to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 1999 (HC)

Salem Chit Funds and Financiers Association Represented by Its Secreta ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-05-1999

Reported in : 1999(1)CTC373; (1999)IIMLJ46

..... filed the above writ petition. 3. the respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that under powers delegated in section 71(1) and (2) of the indian partnership act, the government of tamil nadu in g.o.ms no.747 commercial taxes and religious endowments department dated 27.12.1990 have framed rule 3-a to prescribing a declaration ..... follows: ' annexure notificationin exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and (2) of section 71 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (central act ix of 1932) the governor of tamil nadu hereby makes the following rules to the tamil nadu partnership (registration of firms) rules 1932. the same having been previously published as required by sub-section (3) of section 71 ..... the case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: the members of the association consists of registered partnership firms and individuals, carrying on business in chit funds and financing in salem district. most of the members of the association are partnership firms. the partnership act does not prescribe or provide for the necessity of filing any declaration form by a registered firm, for ..... its continuance after the registration of such firm under section 59 of the act. under section 61, the firm has to send intimation to the registrar .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 15 1999 (HC)

M/S. K.R.M. Money Lenders Rep by Its Power Agent Karuppiah Vs. Mr. A. ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-15-1999

Reported in : 1999(2)CTC540; (1999)3MLJ51

..... not been established that it is a registered firm and section 69(2) of the indian partnership act is a bar. according to the senior counsel, it has not been established by the plaintiff that it is a registered partnership firm and who are all the partners who have constituted the firm on the relevant ..... or reliefs are different. where the very institution is inherently defective, the very plaint is non est and barred by section 69(2) of the partnership act, this court cannot appreciate the view taken by the first appellate court in this respect that the plaint is valid in respect of other defendants and ..... that the registration of the firm is a condition precedent to its right to institute a suit of the nature mentioned in section (2) of the partnership act and that the registration after the institution of the suit cannot cure the defect of non registration before the date of the suit. it follows from ..... the suit filed by the appellant on the question of maintainability in view of the provision of sub section (2) of section 69 of the partnership act by confirming the view taken by the trial court and the high court. the supreme court further held that though the plaint was amended on a ..... the registration of a firm is a condition precedent to its right to institute a suit of the nature mentioned in sec 69 (2) of the partnership act and that the registration after the institution of the suit cannot cure the defect of non registration before the date of the suit. in this respect ar .....

Tag this Judgment!


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