Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 2002 Page 1 of about 223 results (0.064 seconds)

Nov 22 2002 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chakkiath Bankers

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Nov-22-2002

Reported in : II(2003)BC486; (2003)182CTR(Ker)424; [2003]261ITR292(Ker); 2003(1)KLT765

..... taken the same view. the tribunal, however, referred to the provisions of section 11(1) of the companies act and held that since the partnership firm was registered under the indian partnership act and also obtained licence under the money lenders act the requirements of section 11(1) are satisfied and, therefore, the assessee firm is entitled to registration.5 ..... it has to be registered under the companies act, or under the money lenders act, partnership act or under any other indian law such as travancore cochin literary, scientific and charitable societies registration act or under the societies registration act. so far as partnership is concerned it is governed by the provisions of the indian partnership act. what is contemplated under section 11 of ..... the companies act is that in respect of a partnership with more than ten persons for carrying on banking business it must be formed under the indian partnership act and consequently the partnership so formed must be registered under the partnership act. sub-sections (4) and (5) ..... fact the tribunal has rightly understood this position and held that since the assessee firm is registered under the indian partnership act besides holding licence under the money lenders act the provisions of section 11 of the companies act is satisfied. in other words the inhibition contained under section 11 is not attracted. we are perfectly in agreement .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 07 2002 (HC)

Rajanikanta Padhi Vs. B. Kameswar Subudhi (Dead) After Him His L.Rs. a ...

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Jan-07-2002

Reported in : 2002(I)OLR646

..... same, a ready reference to the relevant provision i. e., sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (in short 'the act 1932') is beneficial and that reads as hereunder:'(2) no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any ..... in that respect the relevant plea which he raised in the court below is as follows :'the suit is also hit under the provisions of the indian partnership act, the right to enforce have not arisen from a contract on behalf of the firm which is unregistered.'to understand the plea and to decide the ..... not maintainable by the plaintiff without including the co-owner, i.e. his brother and the suit is hit by section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932.8. learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent repelled the aforesaid contention and defended correctness of the impugned judgment.9. before discussing the aforesaid points raised ..... non-compliance of section 18-b(2) and rule 11 (iii) ?(3) is the suit not hit under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act ?(4) is the suit maintainable in law ?(5) is the suit barred by limitation ?(6) to what reliefs ?5. in the court ..... defendant-appellant contends that in the written statement, a plea of non-compliance of the provisions of the money lenders act and the suit being bad on account of section 69 of the partnership act had been raised and if these defences were ultimately established, notwithstanding the admissions of the power of attorney holder, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 19 2002 (HC)

B. Raghurama Prabhu Estate, Executrix Smt. M. Kaveri Bai and ors. Vs. ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-19-2002

Reported in : (2003)180CTR(Kar)87; [2003]264ITR124(KAR); [2003]264ITR124(Karn)

..... 25. in the case of saligram v. rajnath air 1974 sc 1094, keeping in view section 47 of the indian partnership act the supreme court has held that : 'according to section 47 of the indian partnership act, 1932, after dissolution of the firm, authority of each partner to bind the firm, and other mutual rights ..... of its members question no. 1 20. before proceeding to answer this question, one has to bear in mind that 'partnership' as defined in section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932, is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any ..... of them acting for all. this relationship may have many other attributes as agreed between the parties and are recognised under the partnership act. so far ..... only on 20th nov., 1994. 24. for completion of the process of winding up, the legislature has engrafted section 47 in the partnership act for continuance of the partnership by creating a legal fiction. this section reads as under: 'section 47. continuing authority of partners for purposes of winding up-- ..... often said, that a firm is merely a compendious description of the individuals who carry on the partnership business. but under the it act, a firm is a distinct assessable entity. section 3 of the indian it act, 1922 treats it as such, and the entire process of computation of the income of a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 2002 (SC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sunil J. Kinariwala

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-10-2002

Reported in : AIR2003SC668; (2003)179CTR(SC)15; [2003]259ITR10(SC); JT2002(10)SC277; (2003)1SCC660; 2003(1)LC543(SC)

..... special interest in the main partnership. the case on hand cannot be treated as one of a sub-partnership, though in view of section 29(1) of the indian partnership act, the trust, as an assignee, becomes entitled to receive the ..... person and a case where a partner constitutes a sub-partnership with his share in the main partnership. whereas in the former case, in view of section 29(1) of the indian partnership act, the assignee gets no right or interest in the main partnership, except of course, to receive that part of the ..... assigned share in the profits from the firm not as a sub-partner because no sub-partnership came into existence but as an assignee ..... profits of the firm referrable to the assignment and to the assets in the event of dissolution of the firm, but in the latter case, the sub-partnership acquires a ..... mr. u.u. lalit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee, on the other hand, argued that under section 29(1) of the india partnership act, 1932, the trust became entitled to receive fifty per cent share of the assessee's income from the firm by assignment under the settlement deed and, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 10 2002 (HC)

Birla Vxl Limited Vs. Dlf Universal Limited

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Sep-10-2002

Reported in : [2003]42SCL153(Delhi)

..... . ltd., navsansar agro products pvt. ltd., dreamland agro industries pvt. ltd., vipul vaibhav agro development pvt. ltd., mr. rajinder singh and dlf universal limited, was constituted. the said partnership was registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. an agreement to sell dated 15.04.1995 was executed by and between the said dlf real estate developers and the appellant herein whereby and whereunder the ..... . ltd. and ors., the learned counsel would contend that the assets and liabilities of the said firm, having vested in the respondent herein in terms of section 47 of the partnership act, it was bound thereby. the learned counsel would further contend that as the learned single judge has failed to appoint an arbitrator, as prayed for by the petitioner as by ..... it took over the assets and liabilities at the close of business hours on 15.12.1995. the said dissolution of the partnership firm must, thereforee, be held to have been effected in terms of section 40 of the partnership act. the parties do not dispute that the arbitration clause contained in the said agreement survives despite execution of the aforementioned deed of ..... or under or in any manner connected with this agreement shall be referred to the sole arbitrator appointed by the firm and the proceedings thereof shall be governed by the indian arbitration act, 1940 and the rules framed there under and the award shall only be filed in a court of appropriate jurisdiction in delhi and in no other court. there shall .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 2002 (HC)

Raman Kapoor Vs. Government of Nct Delhi and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-22-2002

Reported in : 2002VAD(Delhi)217; 98(2002)DLT135; 2002(63)DRJ678

..... with the registrar of firms. in the writ petition, the petitioner's claim is that the registrar of firms has acted on this forged document and has recorded the changes under section 63 of the indian partnership act. the petitioner thereforee seeks the quashing of the changes as recorded by the registrar and seeks quashing of entries in form-a as ..... , recording the retirement of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.4.1992 or otherwise direct the registrar of firms of respondent no. 1 to rectify under section 64 of the indian partnership act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') the alleged mistake as done by him and further to penalise the other partners of the firm for their ..... recorded by the registrar of firms. 4. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the registrar is obliged to carry out the rectification of mistakes under section 64 of the act and such a ..... firm by filing form v, appearing at page 21 of the paper book. the said form no. v under section 63(1) of the act is to the effect that the petitioner has retired from the partnership w.e.f. 31.3.1992. petitioner denies his signature as also the execution of the dissolution deed, which is stated to have been filed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 20 2002 (HC)

Shadow Communications Vs. Prince Gutka Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-20-2002

Reported in : [2003]116CompCas536(Delhi); (2003)2CompLJ262(Del); [2003]41SCL277(Delhi)

..... then was, held as follows:--'9. reverting to the second objection, it has to be borne in mind that section 69 of indian partnership act only contains a prohibition or an unregistered firm filing a suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by the said ..... jagdish chander gupta v. kajaria traders (india) ltd. : [1964]8scr50 . the hon'ble supreme court was called upon to interpret section 69 of the partnership act and, in particular, to the words 'a claim of set off or other proceedings to enforce a right arising from the contract' occurring in sub-section 3 ..... view has been taken:'remedy to recover the dues from third party by way of a suit is barred in view of section 69 of the partnership act and thereforee, when the remedy of the petitioners is barred for recovery of the said amount due from the respondent company, there does not ..... verbal contract is pleaded even though a written contract may be in existence. these instructions would be even contrary to the prescription contained in the indian evidence act. my attention has also been drawn to the petitioner's statement that it proceeded to carry out insertions even though the respondent had refused ..... debt which is recoverable by the petitioners, and thereforee, the presumption which would arise as a result of the notice under section 434 of the companies act would stand rebutted.'3. justice i.j. shah had discussed and distinguished kottamasu sreeman narayanamurthy's case (supra), a paragraph of which had been extracted .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 18 2002 (HC)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Sakala Veera Bhadraiah and Co ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jun-18-2002

Reported in : I(2003)ACC118; 2004ACJ1987; 2002(5)ALT258

..... to pay the sum of rs. 2,07,394 towards costs.2. the suit was laid by the plaintiffs contending therein that the plaintiff no. 1 was a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act and was carrying on business in cotton and cottonseeds with a ginning and oil mill at nagulapadu, pedanandipadu mandal, ponnur dmc. plaintiff no. 2 is bank of baroda ..... he had distant relationship with s. veerabhadraiah, but in his cross-examination by appellants he admitted that he was married to the daughter of mrs. s. veerabhadraiah's sister. in indian social structure one's sister's son-in-law is not a distant relation by any stretch of imagination. since s. veerabhadraiah denied his close relationship with k. hanumantha rao ..... not sure as to the value of the property that he was seeking the insurance for. the plaintiffs-respondents have referred to the following judgments:indian trade & general ins. co. v. bhailal, : air1954bom148 ; svenska handelsbanken v. indian charge chrome, 1994 (1) alt 37; general assurance society ltd. v. chandmull jain, 1966 acj 267 (sc); p. packer v. v. khalid, : air1974ker121 and mina .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 13 2002 (HC)

Board of Acting Governor of the La Martienere and ors. Vs. National En ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Aug-13-2002

Reported in : 2005(2)CHN207

..... in the case of unikrishnan and the definition of the word 'business' under the indian partnership act, the learned judge held that any educational activity undertaken by the respondent no. 2 falls within the category of occupation which is a variant ..... in the case of unikrishnan (supra).21. the learned single judge also relied on the definition of business in section 2(b) of indian partnership act, 1932. therefore, relying on the provision of article 19(1)(g) of the constitution of india and the judgment delivered by justice mohan ..... pointed out here that against the same grievance, namely the grievance against municipal assessment, the remedy under section 169 of the delhi municipal corporation act was available. but here, against the breach of restrictive covenant, the statutory remedy which is available under section 42 of s.r.a., ..... will be useful, while considering the language of section 56(i) to compare it with the language of section 21(a) of the act which provides that a contract for the non-performance of which compensation in money is an adequate relief cannot be specifically enforced. a comparison ..... which could be considered to be 'equally efficacious'. i would accordingly hold that the plaintiff was not debarred under any provision of the specific relief act from instituting the present suit.'72. in municipal board, mathura v. dr. radha ballav pathak, reported in : air1949all301 , the decision in master .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 2002 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Suleman Khan and Mahaboob Khan Tobacco ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jun-06-2002

Reported in : [2002]257ITR170(AP)

..... him as a partner; but it does not render a minor a competent and full partner. for that purpose, the law of partnership must be considered, apart from the definition in income-tax act.section 30 of the indian partnership act clearly lays down that a minor cannot become a partner, though with the consent of the adult partners he may be admitted to ..... the firm were below 20 excluding the minors who were only admitted to the benefits of the partnership as per section 30 of the partnership act. the tribunal affirmed the order of the aac. on reference, the karnataka high court held--'under the provisions of the indian partnership act, a minor cannot be a partner because a minor is not competent to enter into any ..... a benefit which would not have been available otherwise.7. the act has adopted the definitions of 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership1 given in the partnership act, 1932. section 2(23) of the act reads as follows:'(23) 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the indian partnership act, 1932 (9 of 1932); but the expression 'partner' shall also include any person who, ..... preferred appeals to the tribunal under section 263. before the tribunal, on behalf of the assessee, it was contended that according to section 30 of the indian partnership act, a minor cannot be a partner although he may be admitted to the benefits of a partnership. it was also contended on behalf of the assessee that provisions of section 11(2) of the companies .....

Tag this Judgment!


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