Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 2001 Page 1 of about 255 results (0.198 seconds)

Jan 12 2001 (HC)

Polaroid India Private Limited Vs. Nav Nirman Co. and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-12-2001

Reported in : 2001(2)BomCR657; (2001)2BOMLR145; (2001)1CompLJ415(Bom)

..... .5. there is no doubt about the fact that in the case of a partnership registered under the indian partnership act, 1932, the remedy for a dissolution of partnership is also provided in chapter vi of the act. the indian partnership act, 1932 provides for a dissolution of a partnership firm in section 39 and enunciates various modes of dissolution amongst them, in section 40 a ..... present purpose, it is clear that the provisions for winding upof the affairs of a firm which chapter vi of the indian partnership act containsbesides provisions for the dissolution of partnership are left untouched by section590 of the companies act, 1956. the cases cited in support of the respectivecontentions of the parties are not really on the point under consideration ..... company being wound up.'therefore the remedy to seek a dissolution of a registered partnership under the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 is not ousted by the provisions of part x of the companies act. 1956. equally, the existence of the remedy under the indian partnership act, 1932 to seek dissolution does not bar the remedy to apply for winding up ..... up and the respondent which is duly registered under the indian partnership act, 1932 is not an 'unregistered company' within the meaning of the expression used in the companies act. 1956.3. it is common ground that the first respondent is a partnership which was registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932. the question as to the maintainability of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 2001 (HC)

Thumati Paripurna Govindamma and ors. Vs. Thatha China Venkata Subbaia ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-03-2001

Reported in : 2002(3)ALT3

..... suit pronotes are independent contracts or transactions as such de hors the existing liabilities in the course of the said business and therefore the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act cannot be brought into force, i am not prepared to accept such a submission more so when admittedly, the entire plaint allegations and the case of the plaintiffs ..... is unregistered.17. in a recent decision of the apex court in haldiram bhujiawala v. anand kumar deepak kumar, : [2000]1scr1247 the scope of section 69 (2) of the indian partnership act and the bar created therein has been considered with reference to the very objects and also the historical account and especially by taking into consideration the expression enforcing a right ..... consideration of the evidence on record, decreed the suits holding that since the suits are filed by the plaintiffs in their individual capacity, the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act have no application; the execution of the suit pronotes has not been denied and the defendants have failed to prove any coercion in execution thereof. further, the alleged partition ..... execute the suit pronotes and, therefore, the same are not valid and without consideration. further, the plaintiffs' firm being unregistered, the claim is barred under section 69 of the indian partnership act.7. on these and other allegations, the court below has framed the following issues:'o.s. no. 185 of 1983:(1) whether the suit promissory note is true and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 17 2001 (HC)

V.V. Textiles Rep. by Its Proprietor S. Baskaran Vs. Mahavir Fabrics R ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-17-2001

Reported in : (2001)3MLJ295

..... ibrahim v. kakka mohammed ghouse sahib, ; and 3. n.a.munavar hussain sahib v. e.r.narayanan,. 12. section 69(2) of the indian partnership act runs as follows: 'effect of non-registration: (2) no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any court by ..... non-registration, which is a specific bar under section 69 of the indianpartnership act?9. mr. s.krishnasamy, learned counsel for the appellant, referred to section 69 of the indian partnership act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') and contended that the suit was not at all maintainable as the requirement under ..... section 69(2) of the act was mandatory. he also relied on the followingjudgments:1. balasore textile distributors association v. indian union, air 1960 ori 1191; ..... the registration of a firm is a condition precedent for the launching of a suit by the firm as per section 69(2) of the partnership act. subsequentregistration cannot cure the defect. (2) the objection regarding non-registration has to be specifically pleaded. once pleaded it is incumbent on the ..... of the firm is a condition precedent to its right to institute a suit of the nature mentioned in section 69(2) the partnership act and that the registration after the inslitution of the suit cannot cure the defect of non-registration before the date of the suit. it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 2001 (HC)

P. Balakrishna Rao Licencee of Harsha Wines Vs. Prohibition and Excise ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jun-06-2001

Reported in : 2001(4)ALD576

..... the contention of the petitioner is that having regard to the fact that he was partner of two firms constituted and registered in terms of indian partnership act, 1932, the aforementioned amendment is not applicable in this case.4. rule 29 (2) of the 1970 rules as amended by g. ..... rule is not applicable in case of a partnership firm having regard to the fact that the petitioner being holder of joint licence and the licensees having been carrying on the business in partnership. 6. partnership in terms of section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932 signifies the relation between the partners ..... who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. to constitute a partnership there must be (i) a ..... business; (ii) an agreement to share profits of the business; and (iii) the business must be carried on by all or any of the partners acting ..... person. it can neither sue and nor can be sued. relationship of partners in terms of section 5 of the partnership act arises from a contract and no status is created thereby. the mutual rights and obligations of the partners arise out of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 01 2001 (HC)

Ram Nandan Prasad Sinha Vs. K.M. Consultants

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-01-2001

Reported in : AIR2002Bom90; 2002(2)BomCR585; (2002)1BOMLR153; 2002(1)MhLj600

..... that the effect of non-registration is fatal to the validity of the reference and the award. the contention is based on section 69 of the indian partnership act as amended by the state of maharashtra. the provisions of section 69 are set out below :--'69. effect of non-registration. -- (1) no ..... was challenged before the learned single judge was that the respondent was not a registered firm and, in any event, was not registered under the indian partnership act at the material time and, therefore, could not make any claim in the arbitration proceedings and, therefore, the reference as well as the award ..... as a suit would not make any difference for the obvious reason that though sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 69 of the partnership act refer to a suit, sub-section (3) thereof makes those sub-sections applicable even to other proceedings which would include an application registered and numbered ..... in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered under the partnership act. mr. thakkar relied upon the decisions of the supreme court in jagdish chandra gupta v. kajaria traders (india) ltd., : [1964]8scr50 , and delhi ..... claim.' 3. mr. thakkar contends that the reference to the arbitration of the bombay stock exchange constitute 'other proceeding' under section 69(3) of the partnership act. according to him, in view of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 69, no suit or proceeding shall be instituted in any .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 20 2001 (HC)

Gundu Preemsagar and ors. Vs. Nagabandi Jayashankar

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-20-2001

Reported in : 2002(1)ALD554

..... . dr. k.c. govind rao, 1990 (1) alt 52 (nrc).6. as regards the question of subtenancy, it was submitted having regard to the provisions of section 4 of the indian partnership act, and original tenant had never parted with the possession of the premises as a firm had been constituted with one of the family members. if was further submitted that the ..... a family member in the name of the firm will amount to sub-letting within the meaning of a.p. buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control act, 1960 in the light of the provisions of indian partnership act?2. the revision petition arises out of an order of the learned principal senior civil judge, warangal in rca no. 5 of 1994 confirming an order ..... business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. therefore, the partnership business can be carried by any one of them.38. thus, if a person takes ..... of the apex court, it cannot be said that running of a press as a partnership concern would amount to subletting or parting with the possession. to the same effect is the decision in sri sal baba cloth emporium case. section 4 of the indian partnership act clearly defines 'partnership' to mean the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 04 2001 (HC)

Sh. Mukesh Aggarwal Vs. State and Another

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Oct-04-2001

Reported in : 94(2001)DLT374; 2001(60)DRJ779

..... section 200 cr.p.c. adduced by the petitioner. civil liability for payment of amount of said cheque is distinct from criminal liability and the provisions of indian partnership act, thus, have no relevance in the matter. taking note of the ratio in ram kishan rohtagi's case (supra) no fault can be found with ..... a.k. singla for petitioner was that respondent no. 2 was / is responsible for conduct of business carried in partnership in the name of m/s. vogue apparels along with other partners under the indian partnership act, 1932 and the plea taken by her, she being not vicariously liable for the criminal liability arising out of ..... of the said paras of complaint it is alleged that respondent no. 2 / accused no. 3 was in charge of and was responsible to the partnership firm for conduct of its business or that she had consented or connived to the commission of said office within the meaning of above sub-section (2 ..... 141. it is pertinent to note that in para no. 1 of the complaint (ann.a) it is alleged that m/s. vogue apparels is a partnership firm of which accused 2, 3, 4 and 5 are the partners. in para no. 6 it is stated that accused no. 2 on behalf of ..... certificate of postings. however, despite service of notices the amount of cheque was not paid. accused had thus committed offence punishable under section 138 of the act. after recording pre-summoning evidence vide order dated 24th april 1998 the accused were summoned to face trial for the said offence. feeling aggrieved, the accused .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 10 2001 (HC)

The Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi-iii, New Delhi Vs. Shri B.R. Chaw ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-10-2001

Reported in : 2001IIAD(Delhi)256; 90(2001)DLT181

..... assessed in spite of notice. learned counsel for the revenue submitted that in view of section 47 of the indian partnership act, 1932(for short the 'partnership act') and section 189 of the act, mere discontinuance or dissolution would be of no consequence and section 41 of the act was clearly applicable to the facts of the case. 4. section 41(1) at the relevant point of ..... 1968-69. subsequently a part of the duty was refunded by the excise department out of which rs.18,255/- were received by the assessed being the successor of the partnership firm. assessed took the stand that assessment of the firm which had paid the additional fees was still pending consideration and the expenditure may not be allowed as a deduction ..... was carrying on business under the name and style of m/s baldev raj and sons. previously m/s baldev raj and sons was the name and style of a partnership firm of which m/s lal chand, kidar nath, madho ram, bishamber prashad and b.s.chawla were the partners. assessed was the successor to the business which was being ..... '. merely because he was carrying on business in succession to the earlier partnership firm's business, that does not per se make him the 'assessed' covered under section 41(1). section 2(31) of the act defines 'person' to include an 'individual' and a 'firm' separately. section 2(7) of the act defines an 'assessed'. by no stretch of imagination the firm in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 2001 (HC)

Smt. Vunna Visali Vs. State of A.P., Repted., by Public Prosecutor and ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-27-2001

Reported in : 2001(1)ALD(Cri)894; 2001(1)ALT(Cri)511

..... for the conduct of the business of the company/firm, at the relevant time, also liable for the offences under that act, the supreme court held thus:'7. ... ... it is true that under the indian partnership act, 1932, a 'firm' or a 'partnership' is not a legal entity but is merely an association of persons agreed to carry on business. it is only a ..... criminal proceedings initiated against a sleeping partner for the offence punishable under sections 120b, 420, 406 and 468 ipc in g.prameela (smt) v. smt. avula hymavathi, 1997(2) alt(crl) 210) holding thus:'... ... it is true that under the indian partnership act, 'firm' or 'partnership' is not a legal entity, but merely an association of persons agreed to carry on business. it is ..... only a collective name for individuals carrying on business in partnership. the essential characteristic of a firm is, that each partner is a representative of other ..... collective name for individuals, carrying on business in partnership. the essential characteristic of a firm is that each partner is a representative .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 12 2001 (HC)

Pranab Kumar Saha Vs. State of Tripura and ors.

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Jan-12-2001

..... liabilities were settled by the partners mutually and again there is no material to show that there was any public notice for retirement as contemplated by section 32 of the indian partnership act. further, according to the respondents, as per annexure-r/1 the petitioner continued to be a member of the firm even on 2.6.1991 as per declaration made by ..... assessed in the individual name of the petitioner as partner of the firm after the date of retirement.9. the provision regarding retirement is contained in section 33 of the indian partnership act, 1932 and the same is reproduced below: -"retirement of a partner.-(l) a partner may retire,-(a) with the consent of all the other partners,(b) in accordance with an ..... the liabilities of the petitioner. again, as per sub-section (3) of section 32 of the indian partnership act, as noted above, the retiring partner shall continue to be liable as partner to the third parties for any act done by the firm which would have been an act of the firm if done before the retirement, until public notice is given of the retirement ..... and liabilities shall be dealt with in accordance with the provision-' of indian partnership act, 1932."8. a perusal of clause-17 extracted above, can never lead to any conclusion that partnership was a partnership at will. (see air 1961 sc 1225, air 1991 sc, 1020 & 2000(1) glj, 469). regarding retirement from partnership mr. lodh submitted that by issuing notice dated 18,2.1991 (annexure .....

Tag this Judgment!


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