Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-04-2000
Reported in : 2000(4)CTC24
..... c.p.c. for rejecting the plaint as it was barred by law in view of the provisions of sec.69 of the indian partnership act (herein after referred to as 'the act'). in the affidavit filed in support of this application, the petitioner stated that there is no whisper in the plaint as to whether ..... lease agreement was entered into by the petitioner with thepartnership firm or with the four individuals in their personal capacity. the relevant recital in the partnership agreement clause 13 also states that the tenancy right will belong to all the partners in equal proportion. the amounts have been paid by the ..... be the interference of the petitioner with the respondents' possession. the prayer is for restraining the petitioner from interfering with the respondents' possession of the partnership firm otherwise than by due process of law.10. it is not necessary for the defendant to file a written statement or doanything further, because ..... maharajan & co., 1991 t.l.n.j. 107. to decide whether sec.69(2) of the act is attracted the plaint statements must be perused. though the plaint in this case refers to a partnership agreement dated 12.1.1996, the suit is filed in the name of two individuals who do not ..... the partnership had been registered or not and therefore, the suit ought to be dismissed as not maintainable. the respondents in their .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-28-2000
Reported in : 2000(4)CTC751
..... was served on the first respondent only on 28.9.1996, that in the mean time, the second defendant issued notice under section 41 of indian partnership act about the dissolution of the firm from 18.9.1996, that as on 23.9.1996 when the cheques were sought to be cleared ..... the facts and circumstances of this case. if the subsequent events are thus considered, the position would be, by virtue of the operation of the provisions of the partnership act, the dissolution of the firm had come into effect as on 18.9.1996. therefore viewed in that respect, the question would be as to whether it ..... respondent was only on 28.9.1996, that by virtue of the notice given by the second 28.9.1996, defendant under section 43(1) of the partnership act for dissolution of the first petitioner firm, the status quo as on that day was non existence of the firm itself, that in any event, the action ..... , partnership firm was not in existence by virtue of the notice issued by the second respondent under section 41 of partnership act, that that was the status prevailing when orders were passed on 19.9.1996 in i.a.no ..... 1996 in their capacity as partners of the first petitioner firm intimating the bank about the withdrawal of powers conferred on the second petitioner by virtue of the partnership deed dated 1.6.1992 to operate the bank accounts on behalf of the first petitioner firm and therefore, none of the cheques signed by the managing .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-26-2000
Reported in : ILR2003KAR4617
..... , being the partners of the first petitioner - accused, are liable to face the prosecution and in that connection, placed reliance on section 25 of the indian partnership act, 1932, and, in any event, it is not a case, where the proceedings can be quashed under section 482 of cr. p.c. when ..... with it, as he was not at fault nor wrong in impleading all the partners as accused, when kept in mind section 25 of the partnership act. that being so, taking cognizance and issuing process against all the partners of the firm also by the trial court was not at all bad ..... said admitted facts constitute an offence punishable under section 138 of negotiable instruments act against all the partners of the firm or not5. section 25 of partnership act, on which the complainant relies, is as under:'25. liability of a partner for acts of the firm. - every partner is liable, jointly with all the ..... other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner.'6. section 141 of the negotiable instruments act, which ..... thus:'3........................the 2nd petitioner the managing partner of the firm, over-all looking after the affairs and management of the firm. as per the partnership deed 4th & 5th partners are the sleeping partners not at all involved in the affairs and management of the firm.'so also in paragraph no. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-14-2000
Reported in : 2000VAD(Delhi)889; 2000(3)ARBLR142(Delhi)
..... .3.1999. (v) no amount having been withdrawn by the two respondents for their personal use or benefit. (vi) the petitioners are merely unsecured creditors under section 37 of the indian partnership act, 1932. (vii) it is necessary to preserve the goodwill which is the most precious asset of the firm. (viii) it is further necessary to pay royalty to the authors in ..... % share in the firm. the petitioner's case is that on the death of shri prakash chand, the partnership stood dissolved by operation of law under section 42 sub-clause (c) of the indian partnership act, there being no clause for the continuation of the partnership subsequent to the death of one of the partners. pursuant to the death of the shri prakash chand efforts ..... not ipso facto apply. 15. the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 in support of his plea for appointment of a receiver: (1) section 42(c) which postulates the dissolution of a partnership by the death of a partner; (2) section 46 which prescribes the right of partners to have business wound up ..... in view of the provision of section 42(c) of the partnership act providing for dissolution of a partnership on the death of a partner, the partnership came to an end. he has further pleaded that on the dissolution of the partnership as per the provisions of sections 46, 48 and 49 of the indian partnership act, the firm has to be wound up and after the debts .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-04-2000
Reported in : ILR2000KAR3222; 2000(5)KarLJ1
..... thus, it was held that the firm and its partners are interchangeable terms and therefore if a partnership firm incurs any liability, it is the liability of all the partners. section 25 of the indian partnership act, 1932 provides that every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally for ..... all acts of the firm done while he is a partner. thus, the liability of the partnership firm is a joint and several liability of each ..... of them has rights and liabilities of a subscriber. therefore, when such partner subscriber is in default in payment of telephone dues because the partnership firm has failed to pay those bills rule 443 is attracted and any telephone rented to such subscriber-partner even in his individual capacity is ..... of bhagwanji devraj v union of india, by the learned single judge. there also, the contention was that one shakti oil mill, a partnership firm was in default of payment of the telephone charges and it was contended that the firm was a distinct entity from partners constituting the ..... and every partner. applying this principle, the learned single judge held that the telephone rented by the partnership firm was really rented .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jul-10-2000
Reported in : 247ITR574(Ker)
..... . the assessing authority was of the view that 'carrying on a business' is a must for the existence of a firm. as per explanation (i) to section 6 of the indian partnership act, sharing of profits or gross returns arising from property by persons holding a joint or common interest in that property does not make such persons partners. thus, the application for ..... not come under the head of business under the income-tax act, if it is a partnership under the partnership act, then the firm is entitled to registration. under the rules, the assessing authority is entitled to find out whether the partnership is genuine or not. under section 4 of the indian partnership act, 'partnership' is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a ..... . it is true that for the purpose of registration of the firm, under the income-tax act, what is to be looked into is whether the partnership has come into force as per the indian partnership act. whatever may be the head of assessment under the income-tax act, so long as what was carried on by the firm could be classified as business in the ..... business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. so the existence of a business is a pre-requisite for grant .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-20-2000
Reported in : (2000)3CALLT364(HC),[2001(88)FLR844],(2001)ILLJ628Cal
..... for consideration in this appeal is as to whether such partners who were getting salaries would be employees within the meaning of section 2(9) of the said act, section t3(a) of the indian partnership act, 1932, inter alia, provides that subject to contract between the partners, a partner is not entitled to receive remuneration for taking part in the conduct of the ..... by each partner, as may mutually be agreed upon. this principle proceeds on the basis that in terms of the deed of partnership as also under the provisions of the indian partnership act, each partner has a duty to attend to the partnership business. this aspect of the matter albeit in a different context has been considered by the appex court in v.d. dhanwatey ..... principles of law, agree with the contention of mr. sanyal that for the purpose of the provisions of the said act, or otherwise, a partner cannot be said to be an employee of the partnership firm having regard to the provisions of the indian partnership act, in as much as, it is a well settled principles of service jurisprudence that a person cannot both be ..... conglomeration of partners over which each partner has a share in the profit thereof to the extent of his share in terms of the deed of partnership, a company incorporated and registered under the companies act, is a juristic person and can sue and be sued in its own name. such a juristic person being a body corporate can own property in .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-23-2000
Reported in : 2000(2)ALD528; 2000(2)ALT234
..... 2 and 3 have no authority to carry on business in turmeric in view of clauses (4) and (9) of the partnership deed and sections 18 and 19 of the indian partnership act. he further contended that when the accounts of the firm show that business in turmeric was actually carried on and no objection ..... things usual, necessary, expedient and incidental to the business and management of the firm.6. section 18 of the indian partnership act, 1932 postulates that subject to the provisions of this act, a partner is the agent of the firm for the purposes of the business of the firm. section 19 deals with ..... the theory of implied authority. it is manifest from a reading of subsection (1) of section 19 of the partnership act that the implied authority of a partner is applicable only to such an act of the partner which is done to carry on, in the usual way, business of the kind carried on ..... and 3 filed separate written statements denying the several allegations made by the plaintiff and contending that though they were styled as managing partners in the partnership deed, the business was actually conducted and carried on by the plaintiffs son mallikarjuna rao and the 5th defendant. it was also contended by them ..... suit was filed on 16-11-1963 on the allegations that inspite of the plaintiffs demands to render proper accounts of the business done by the partnership, defendants did not pay any heed and that after a great deal of pursuasion and pressure, defendants 2 and 3 showed the accounts which were .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-08-2000
Reported in : 2000(3)ALD559
..... of being so treated'.16. in mahabir cold storage v, cit : 188itr91(sc) , the supreme court held:'under the indian partnership act, 1932, the partnership firm registered thereunder is neither a person nor a legal entity, it is merely a collective name for the individual members of the ..... in ashok transport agency v. awadhesh kumar : air1999sc1484 , the supreme court held :'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 ..... he firm, each partner becomes entitled to his share in the profits, if any, after the accounts aresettled in accordance with section 48 of the partnership act. in the entire asset of the firm, all the partners have an interest albeit in proportion to their share and the residue, if any, after ..... be an agriculturist if he (a) has in both the financial years ending 31st march, 1935 been assessed to income tax under the indian income tax act, 1922 or under the income tax laws of any part of india which immediately before the 1st day of november, 1956 was comprised .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-27-2000
Reported in : 247ITR737(Cal)
..... no opposition has been filed.2. the brief facts of this case are as follows :petitioners nos. 1 and 3 are partnership firms. both at the relevant point of time were registered under the indian partnership act, 1932, and also under the income-tax act, 1961. petitioner no. 2 is one of the partners of petitioner no. 1 while petitioner no. 4 is one of ..... is merely a collective name for the individual members of the partnership firm. a firm as such cannot be a partner in another firm though its partners may be partners ..... upon me to decide this issue as i have been called upon. two partnership firm both are assessees, formed joint venture for particular works. in the case of mahabir cold storage v. cit : 188itr91(sc) , it has been observed by the supreme court that under the indian partnership act, 1932, a partnership firm registered thereunder is neither a person nor a legal entity. it ..... lordship's judgment in w.p. no. 5035 of 1987 (gouranga lal chatterjee v. ito) that the aforesaid combination of the two partnership firms is not 'person' within the definition of section 2(31)(v) of the income-tax act, 1961. with respect i do not find any decision on this issue by justice kundu in his lordship's judgment ; as rightly .....Tag this Judgment!