Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 2002 Page 10 of about 223 results (0.067 seconds)

Mar 26 2002 (HC)

Indian Commercial Co. Ltd. Vs. Amrish Kilachand and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-26-2002

Reported in : AIR2002Bom391; 2002(3)ALLMR395; 2003(1)ARBLR10(Bom); 2002(4)BomCR635

..... was for a declaration that the impugned agreement dated 22-3-1996 purportedly creating rights in favour of amrish kilachand is fraudulent, null and void and not binding on the partnership. in the suit icc ltd. claimed to have taken the premises on leave and licence basis from kilachand devchand and company ltd. inshort, what was claimed was a declaration ..... that no rights accrued to amrish kilachand under the agreement dated 22-3-1996 and, inter alia, sought an injunction restraining amrishkilachand and his company indian speciality chemicals company (india) private limited from entering into the suit premises, more particularly described in exh. d-1 to the plaint i.e. the premises in question. i ..... the determination of the manner in which the arbitrator conducted the proceedings. in this regard, it would be worthwhile to note that under section 34 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996, parliament has limited the challenges to an award on the grounds stated therein. section 34 reads as follows :--'34. application for setting aside arbitral award.-- (1) recourse to ..... leave and licence of the premises which, according to the learned counsel, was purely within the jurisdiction of the small causes court to decide under the presidency small cause courts act, 1882. mr. patel, learned counsel for the plaintiff, however, contended that the learned arbitrator has not given any finding adjudicating the rights of amrish kilachand as a licensee. infact, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 22 2002 (HC)

Bedi Sons Steels and Wires Vs. B.G. Brothers

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-22-2002

Reported in : [2002]112CompCas426(P& H)

..... 1992(2) all india banking law judgments 20, wherein it was observed as under :'proprietary concern is not a firm. a firm is a partnership firm consisting of partners. in this case, the first accused is not a firm. it is only a proprietary concern. as such section 141 of the ..... been directed to appear in the court to face trial in complaint filed under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the act') read with section 420 of the indian penal code and the order dated 20.8.2001 (annexure-p.5) whereby application filed by the petitioner under ..... these things sink, sail and merge with only the entity.' 8. the controversy raised stands settled in the latest pronouncement of the apex courtin anil hada v. indian acrylic ltd., iv (1999) ccr 285 (sc)=ii (1999) bc 138=x (1999) slt 487=2000(1) rcr (criminal) i, wherein the brief ..... that reason proceedings could not be initiated against its name in terms of the provisions of section 11 of the indian penal code read with section 3(42) of the general clauses act and for that reason complaint being not maintainable was liable to be dismissed. this application was contested by the respondent ..... was issued by raman as proprietor of m/s. sri sivasakthi industries and raman cannot be proceeded with for offence under section 138, negotiable instruments act should not be countenanced by the trial court. the complaint is maintainable against the second accused. on the ground that accused 1 and 2 arc .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 2002 (HC)

Mokha Light House Vs. the Central Pollution Control Board and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Dec-17-2002

Reported in : 2003(1)ARBLR349(Delhi); 102(2003)DLT660

..... k. agarwal, j. 1. this is a petition under section 16(3) read with section 41 of the indian arbitration act, 1940 (for short, 'the act'), praying that the award remitted under section 16(1) by this court vide order dated 20.12.1994,has become ..... void on failure of the arbitration tribunal to submit the decision within the reasonable time.2. facts in brief are: that petitioner is a partnership firm; respondents 1 & ..... the contract by not making payment timely and correct despite repeated requests. petitioner invoked arbitration clause and filed a petition under section 20 of the arbitration act. the disputes were referred to arbitration. respondents appointed three arbitrators on 17.5.1989 for adjudication of disputes between the parties. the arbitrators (respondent ..... the proceedings. the petitioner was thus left with no alternative and by notice dated 4.12.1999, respondent no. 3 under section 8 of the act, constituting fresh arbitral tribunal and appointing new arbitrator in place of earlier arbitrator under clause 38 of the general consideration of the contract, within fifteen ..... the rival contentions. to recall the facts, the contract agreement dated 31.8.1987; initial reference was made under section 20 of the arbitration act by this court vide order dated 17.5.1989. the award rendered by the arbitrators on 17.8.1990, rejecting the claims of the respondent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 08 2002 (HC)

B. Ramachandra Adityan Vs. Educational Trustee Co. (P.) Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-08-2002

Reported in : [2003]113CompCas334(Mad); [2003]41SCL385(Mad)

..... pursued by the company on its incorporation and the objects incidental or ancillary to the attainment of the main objects. section 11(2) of the companies act provides that no company or association or partnership consisting of more than twenty persons shall be formed for the purpose of carrying on any business that has for its object theacquisition of gain by the ..... the services rendered by the employees from the trust itself and in that process, the first respondent company is carrying on its object by acting as a trustee for the trust.31. further, section 32 of the indian trusts act, 1882 also provides that the trustee is entitled to get reimbursement out of the trust property all expenses properly incurred in relation to ..... the administration of estates as an executor, trustee or otherwise and section 6 provides that the banking company can act as a trustee in several manners as indicated in section 6(1)(j).10. in the indian trusts act by n. suryanarayana iyer, learned author has observed as under:--'formerly the notion was that the relationship of a trustee being one of confidence ..... company, etc. unless it is registered as a company under the companies act or is formed in pursuance of some other indian law. section 11(1) deals with the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 11 2002 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hazarat Pir Shah-e-alam Roza Estate Tru ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Apr-11-2002

Reported in : [2002]256ITR193(Guj)

..... , was illegal and of no consequence, and what had to be seen was whether the assessee was a public charitable trust on the basis of the partnership deed dated november 28, 1941, and that the power to revoke the trust was taken away by a subsequent document dated august 26, 1943. it ..... conclusive, as provided by sub-section (2) of section 21.26. in this context, we may also note the provisions of section 35 of the indian evidence act, which provide that, an entry in any public or other official book, register, or record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made ..... conclusion that the appellant was a public charitable trust and was entitled to exemption under section 4(3)(i) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, and section 11 of the income-tax act, 1961.(i) a division bench judgment of this court in letters patent appeal in sayed mohomed baquir-el-edroos valde ..... exclusive jurisdiction to give such findings. these findings operate as findings in rem and, therefore, cannot be ignored by the authorities under the income-tax act.31. we may now proceed to consider whether the judgment of the bombay high court in first appeal no. 188 of 1952 precluded the consideration of ..... the property of the trust were required to be decided by the deputy charity commissioner or by the charity commissioner in appeal as provided under the act. no notice was issued to the charity commissioner in that appeal. the deputy charity commissioner noted the following observations in the judgment of the high .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 11 2002 (HC)

Cit Vs. Hazarat Pir Shah-e-alam Roza Estate Trust

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Apr-11-2002

Reported in : (2002)175CTR(Guj)66

..... was illegal and of no consequence, and what had to be seen was whether the assessee was a public charitable trust on the basis of the partnership deed dated 28-11-1941, and that the power to revoke the trust was taken away by a subsequent document dated 26-8-1943. it was ..... conclusive, as provided by sub-section (2) of section 21.13.5. in this context, we may also note the provisions of section 35 of the indian evidence act, which provide that, an entry in any public or other official book, register, or record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made ..... the conclusion that the appellant was a public charitable trust and was entitled to exemption under section 4(3)(1) of the indian income tax act, 1922 and section 11 of the income tax act, 1961. (i) a division bench judgment of this court in a letters patent appeal in sayed mohomed baquir-e1-edroos ..... has exclusive jurisdiction to give such findings. these findings operate as findings in rem and, therefore, cannot be ignored by the authorities under the income tax act.17. we may now proceed to consider whether the judgment of the bombay high court in first appeal no. 188 of 1952 precluded the consideration of ..... was the property of the trust were required to be decided by the deputy charity commissioner or by the charity commissioner in appeal as provided under the act. no notice was issued to the charity commissioner in that appeal. the deputy charity. commissioner noted the following observations in the judgment of the high court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 21 2002 (HC)

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P. Govindasamy

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-21-2002

Reported in : (2003)179CTR(Mad)566; [2003]263ITR509(Mad)

..... as the firm consisted of three partners, the wife, the son and daughter of the assessee and two minors admitted to the benefit of the partnership. the assessee carried the assessment order dated 14.3.1986 on appeal to commissioner of income-tax (appeals), but ultimately did not press the appeal ..... decide the issue. the explanation requires that in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under the act, if such person failed to offer an explanation or offers explanation, which is found by the income-tax officer or the appellate assistant commissioner ..... of the inspecting assistant commissioner: explanation 1. - where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under this act, - (a) such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the income-tax officer or the appellate assistant commissioner ..... portion of section 271 reads thus:'271(1) if the income-tax officer or the appellate assistant commissioner, in the course of any proceedings under this act, is satisfied that any person - ... (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct that ..... assessment on 14.3.1986 had put the assessee on notice for initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the income-tax act. the assessee by his letter dated 9.3.1988 explained that he had come forward with a settlement with the commissioner by offering the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 2002 (HC)

K. Narayanappa Vs. the Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore Central a ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-31-2002

Reported in : 2003(1)KarLJ287

..... complaint was lodged in the hebbagodi police station. cognizance was taken by the learned judge. petitioner filed an application seeking release and custody of the vehicle in terms of the act. demand notice was issued to the petitioner in terms of annexure-c. aggrieved by the same, petitioner has filed an appeal. appellate authority dismissed the appeal. this appellate order is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 2002 (HC)

Factory Manager, Rajashree Cements Vs. Naeem Pasha and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-06-2002

Reported in : [2003(96)FLR285]; ILR2002KAR4817; 2003(1)KarLJ274; (2003)ILLJ781Kant

..... of evaluating evidence in departmental enquiries. according to the learned counsel, the labour court failed to notice that the strict rules of the indian evidence act has no application in the matter of enquiries either before the department or before the labour court. all that the labour court has to ..... them. if these rules are satisfied, the enquiry is not open to attack on the ground that the procedure laid down, in the indian evidence act for taking evidence was not strictly followed'.(emphasis supplied)26. on the power of enquiry officer during departmental enquiry to put questions and elicit ..... courts, a party is entitled to ask leading questions unless objected to by the adversary with the permission of court under section 142 of the indian evidence act which reads 'leading questions must not, if objected to by the adverse party, be asked in examination-in-chief, except with the permission ..... this is what the court has said:'it is well-settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the indian evidence act may not apply. all materials which are logically probative for a prudent man are permissible'.30. the finding of the labour court on ..... cannot be sustained for the reasons stated above.31. the labour court evidently has exercised the discretion under section 11a of the industrial disputes act possibly influenced by the fact that charge 2 is not proved while ordering for reinstatement and denying back wages.32. before the introduction of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 2002 (HC)

S. Umapathy and anr. Vs. the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-21-2002

Reported in : ILR2002KAR2205; 2003(2)KarLJ472

..... same. therefore, annexure-p and n are also not disturbed on the peculiar facts of this case.19. mr. subba rao, learned senior counsel argued that if the respondents have acted erroneously and if the petitioners are not guilty of any fault on their part, it is not proper to recover any excess amount already paid to them. reliance is placed ..... think that this court would be justified in striking down an order of 1977 in the year 2002. the said order has withstood the test of time and has been acted upon by all concerned. any striking down at this juncture would cause unnecessary hardship to the parties concerned.14. even otherwise, it is seen that a division bench of this .....

Tag this Judgment!


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