Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 2002 Page 5 of about 223 results (0.062 seconds)

Dec 05 2002 (HC)

Cit Vs. K. Wadhumal and Sons

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-05-2002

Reported in : [2003]130TAXMAN611(All)

orderthis is an income-tax reference under section 256(1) of the income tax act in which the following question has been referred to us for our opinion :'whether the tribunal was justified in holding that there should be two separate assessments for the two periods in the case ?'2. the relevant assessment year is 1980-81. during this assessment year one of the partners kewal bai died and thereafter a new partnership deed was entered into by which a new partner was indicated. the question is whether it was a case of dissolution or reconstitution of the firm.3. it is settled law that ordinarily on the death of a partner, the partnership firm is automatically dissolved vide section 42 of the indian partnership act. the only exception is where in the partnership deed it is mentioned that on death of a partner the firm will not dissolve. in this case there is nothing to show that there is any mention in the partnership deed that the firm shall not automatically dissolve on the death of a partner.4. hence, in view of the decision of the supreme court in cit v. empire estate : [1996]218itr355(sc) this reference is decided in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the department.

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 17 2002 (HC)

Kuttukaran Machine Tools Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Sep-17-2002

Reported in : (2003)185CTR(Ker)104

..... of such dues was allowed in the assessment order. it is settled law that a firm cannot exist without a business, for partnership according to section 4 of the indian partnership act is the relationship between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them ..... acting for all. the decision of the madras high court in o.rm.om.rm.pl. muthukawppan chettiai v. cit : [1943]11itr540(mad) ..... of the business will have to be sold and their value realised the madras high court observed that the position is not very different when the partnership ceases to exist in the course of the accounting year. it was further observed that the fact that ramachari, one of the ex-partners, took ..... for the book value of the respective assets and the resultant difference in the value shall be apportioned among the partners as provided for in the partnership deed by which the party of the first part was last reconstituted and the balance sheet of the party of the first part for the purpose ..... and the tribunal is right in directing so ?'3. the matter arises under the it act, 1961 (for short 'the act'). the assessment year concerned is 1991-92, relevant accounting period ended 31st march, 1991. the assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business in the manufacture of machine tools for use in automobile industry. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 17 2002 (HC)

Kuttukaran Machine Tools Vs. Cit

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Sep-17-2002

Reported in : [2003]131TAXMAN690(Ker)

..... of such dues was allowed in the assessment order. it is settled law that a firm cannot exist without a business, for partnership according to section 4 of the indian partnership act is the relationship between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them ..... acting for all. the decision of the madras high court in o.rm.om.rm.pl. muthukaruppan chettiar v. cit : [1943]11itr540(mad) ..... of the business will have to be sold and their value realised the madras high court observed that the position is not very different when the partnership ceases to exist in the course of the accounting year. it was further observed that the fact that ramachari, one of the ex-partners, took ..... for the book value of the respective assets and the resultant difference in the value shall be apportioned among the partners as provided for in the partnership deed by which the party of the first part was last reconstituted and the balance sheet of the party of the first part for the ..... is right in directing so ?'3. the matter arises under the income tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the assessment year concerned is 1991-92, relevant accounting period ended 31-3-1991. the assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business in the manufacture of machine tools for use in automobile industry .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 2002 (HC)

Suriya Moorthy and Vs. Mrs. B. Chandradevi

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-17-2002

Reported in : II(2004)BC73; [2003]116CompCas234(Mad)

..... has to be quashed.3. the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant submits that since there is no dispute that the 1st accused is a partnership firm and the petitioners are also the partners, the indian partnership act comes to play in the official dealings of the petitioners' firm. he also brings to the notice of this court secs.12, 25 and 26 ..... of the partnership act. sec.12 says that every partner has a right to take part in the conduct of the business. sec. 25 says that every partner is ..... insofar as the appellant is concerned. the proceedings in question for the alleged offence under sec.138 as against the appellant are quashed'.5. insofar as the provisions of the partnership act is concerned, sec.12 only recognises the right of a person to take part in the conduct of the business. right is different from liability. just because a partner has ..... firm, it has to be read subject to the provisions made under sec. 141 negotiable instruments act, which is a special provision. sec.141 negotiable instruments act overrides the provision found in sec.25 of partnership act which is general in nature.7. under sec.141 of negotiable instruments act if the main offender is the company or firm, every person, who at the time .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 09 2002 (HC)

Godavarthi Veeralakshmi and ors. Vs. Sangi Ramaraju and Co.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-09-2002

Reported in : I(2003)BC552

..... 2 to 4. the averments, in brief, in the written statement of 1st appellant are, respondent is put to proof that it is a firm registered under the provisions of indian partnership act and is entitled to sue on the promissory note and has to prove thather husband suryanarayana after borrowing rs. 20,000/- from the respondent, executed the promissory note dated 14 ..... first appellant examined herself as d.w. 1 and marked exs. b1 to b4. the learned trial judge held that the respondent is a firm registered under the provisions of indian partnership act and that the suit promissory note is true, valid and is supported by consideration and the debt was contracted by suryanarayana for legal necessity and for the benefit of the ..... the managing partner of the respondent firm. ex. a6 certificate of registration issued by the registrar of firms shows that respondent is a firm registered under the provisions of the partnership act. since the first appellant as d.w. 1 did not dispute the fact that p.w. 1 is the managing partner of the respondent firm and since ex. a6 shows ..... respondent is a firm registered under the provisions of the partnership act, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding on issue no. 1 recorded by the trial court.6. the evidence of p.ws. 2 and 3 read with pw1 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 18 2002 (HC)

Shoib Ullah and ors. Vs. Bhartesh Chandra JaIn and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Sep-18-2002

Reported in : AIR2003All31

..... that firm m/s. s.u. butlders is an unregistered firm and therefore, the suit is barred under section 69 of the indian partnership act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the trial court framed an issue on this plea and recorded finding on 19-2-2001 that the suit is barred by section ..... mixed question of fact. the question whether the suit for accounting against the firm and the partners where the partnership is unregistered is a pure question of law. it is admitted that the partnership is unregistered.17. in my opinion, the trial court has therefore rightly exercised jurisdiction in deciding the above ..... take valuable time of the court. if after recording of the evidence it is found that the suit is barred by section 69 of the act the entire exercise will be in vain. therefore, the trial court properly exercised its jurisdiction to decide the above question as preliminary issue and the ..... scc 88 : (air 1996 sc 2209). in this case the apex court was considering the application for reference of dispute under section 20 of the arbitration act. this case, therefore, is not applicable to the facts of the present case.9. the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has defendant the order ..... question as a preliminary issue. it has also rightly held that the suit is barred by section 69 of the act.18. the first appeal from order .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 18 2002 (HC)

Vattumalli Narayana Rao Vs. Medrarapu Krishna Rao and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jun-18-2002

Reported in : AIR2003AP46; 2002(5)ALD588; 2002(6)ALT528

..... the other partners of the firm also are liable. section 22 of the indian partnership act, deals with mode of doing act to bind firm, and section 28 of the said act deals with holding out. section 22 of the said act reads as follows:'in order to bind a firm, an act or instrument done or executed by a partner or other person on behalf of ..... the plaint are neither true nor the suit is maintainable under the law. the defendants 2 to 5 constituted partnership firm and contracted sri venkateswara rice and flour mill and carried on business. but it is not true that the 2nd defendant acted as managing partner of the firm. it is equally not true that the 2nd defendant borrowed rs. 15,000 ..... and decided together.13. the 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit on the strength of a promissory note stated to have been executed by the 2nd defendant in the suit acting as the managing partner of the 1st defendant firm. having borrowed a sum of rs. 15,000/- for the business of the 1st defendant firm on 21-9-1979 and ..... the firm while defendants 2 to 5 are its partners, doing rice and flour mill contract business under the name and style of the 1st defendant. the 2nd defendant is acting as the managing partner. the 2nd defendant for the purpose of the 1st defendant firm business, borrowed a sum of rs. 15,000 - from the plaintiff on 21-9-1979 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 07 2002 (HC)

Cit Vs. Shyam Sunder and Sons

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-07-2002

Reported in : [2003]130TAXMAN596(All)

orderheard counsel for the parties.2. this is an income-tax reference under section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1961. in which the following question has been referred to us for our opinion :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was not the case of mere change in the constitution of the firm within the meaning of section 187(2) of the income tax act, 1961 ?'3. the relevant assessment year is 1981-82. during this assessment year one of the partner of the assessee-firm smt. vidyawati devi died on 16-5-1980. there is no mention in the partnership deed that the partnership will continue despite the death of a partner. hence in view of section 42(c) of the indian partnership act, the firm automatically stated dissolved on the death of the partner and hence it is a case of dissolution of the firm and not re-constitution. consequently there should be two assessments and not one in view of the supreme court decision in cit v. empire estate : [1996]218itr355(sc) . we, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. the reference is answered accordingly.

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 2002 (TRI)

Coronation Arts and Crafts and B. Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

Decided on : May-31-2002

Reported in : (2002)(83)ECC656

..... hired labourers. the apex court in the case of basant industries (supra) in an identical situation as held in para 2 to 4 are reproduced herein: 2. the appellant, a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act, was engaged in the manufacture of combustion and diesel engines bearing brand name 'atul shakti' for which it was duly licensed under the central excise & salt ..... act, 1944 ('act', for short). it also carried on trading in pumps. it entered into agreements with different units who were duly licensed under the act for manufacturing pumps and power driven pumps. in ..... of printing of sheets of paper board which was entrusted to them by npc. clw raised bills for printing charges on npc and received the amounts. c. clw is a partnership firm at present consisting of 4 partners and is in-existence from 1936 onwards. the firm as well as the partners are assessed to income-tax. the firm has been ..... case, the very question of relationship between the scorers and laminators with that of the appellant is under challenge and it has been established that they were independent and were acting on principal to principal basis. therefore, the apex court judgment rendered in the case of basant industries (supra) and that of rollatainers ltd. v. union of india (supra) has clearly .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 16 2002 (HC)

Multimetals Ltd. Vs. K.L. Jolly Through L. Rs.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-16-2002

Reported in : AIR2003Raj8; RLW2003(2)Raj1111; 2002(5)WLC247

..... specifically denied the contention of the plaintiff by contending inter alia that :--(a) the suit was not maintainable on account of section 69 of the indian partnership act;(b) the plaintiff had deliberately delayed the execution of the work due to which, the operation schedule of the defendant was unnecessarily delayed resulting in ..... counsel for the appellant has contended that the proceedings ofthe appeal before this court in view of the provisions of section 22 of the said act are to be stayed till the appellant-company is revived and till the appellant-company continued as sick industry.22. be that as it may ..... industrial financial reconstruction at delhi and the appellant-company was declared as a sick company in terms of section 3(1)(o) of the said act and idbi bank has been appointed as the operating agency under section 73 to examine the viability of the company and to formulate a rehabilition ..... .court has not erroneously considered this aspect of the matter in view of the principle of law as incorporated in section 55 of the contract act.(e) in the instant case the delay was caused by the contractor of 243 days and thus the architect by allowing relaxation of sixty days ..... to work beyond the stipulated date of completion without raising any objection or serving a notice to claim compensation under section 55 of the contract act, the contractor shall be deemed to have waived his right to claim compensation at a later date for working beyond the stipulated date of completion .....

Tag this Judgment!


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