Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 271 results (0.113 seconds)

Nov 10 2004 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Badri Nath Ganga Ram

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-10-2004

Reported in : [2005]273ITR485(All)

..... minor.16. the appellate commissioner while allowing the appeal lost sight of the fact that sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 30 of the indian partnership act operates in different fields.17. in view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the order of the tribunal granting registration to the ..... been specifically mentioned that the minor shall also be liable to share the loss to the extent of his share, according to section 30 of the indian partnership act. the last portion of clause (5) of the deed that the minor shall also be liable for the loss to the extent of his share ..... that as in the present case the minor has also been made liable to share the losses to the extent of his share, according to section 30 of the indian partnership act, the firm is not entitled for grant of registration.(1) cit v. oriental t. maritime : [1997]227itr244(ap) ;(2) addl. cit v. uttam kumar ..... has nothing to do with sub-section (1) of section 30 of the indian partnership act, which provides that a minor can be admitted to the benefits of partnership. section 2(a) of the partnership act defines an 'act of a firm' means any act or omission by all the partners, or by any partner or agent of the ..... to share the profit of the firm but shall not be liable for the losses except as defined under the indian partnership act. the court on the interpretation of clause (2) of the partnership deed of that case came to the conclusion that loss has to be fully distributed amongst the three adult partners. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 2004 (SC)

Firm Ashok Traders and anr. Etc. Vs. Gurumukh Das Saluja and ors. Etc.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-09-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC1433; 2004(1)ARBLR141(SC); 2004(2)AWC949(SC); (2004)2CompLJ419(SC); 2004(2)CTC208; JT2004(2)SC352; 2004(3)MhLj592; 2004MPLJ266(SC); (2004)137PLR526; 2004(1)SCALE29

..... so on. ajay arora (of group 'a') filed a civil suit which was held to be not-maintainable in view of section 69(3) of the indian partnership act, 1932; the name of ajay arora having not been shown in the register of firms as a partner of the firm. according to group 'a', a ..... orders as it has for the purpose of, and in relation to, any proceedings before it.indian partnership act, 193269. effect of non-registration. - (1) no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this act shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of any person suing as a ..... ) the constitution bench approved of a liberal and full meaning being assigned to the phrase 'other proceedings' in sub-section (3) of section 69 of the partnership act untramelled by the preceding words 'a claim of set-off. the court refused to countenance the plea for interpreting the words 'other proceedings' ejusdem generis with the ..... the contract for the year 2003-04 is concerned was vehemently denied. it was reiterated that the application was hit by section 69(3) of the partnership act and hence was liable to be dismissed. the high court has allowed the appeal. it has held that the applicability of section 69(3) is not ..... on very many grounds and mainly by submitting that the application was not maintainable in view of the bar enacted by section 69(3) of the partnership act as the name of the applicant does not figure in the register of firms as partner of the firm. the plea has prevailed with the learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 15 2004 (HC)

Vanita Gambhir and ors. Vs. District Judge and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Oct-15-2004

Reported in : 2005(1)ARBLR166(Delhi)

..... framed by the learned additional district judge on 8.7.2002 in these applications:-'whether the petition is maintainable in view of bar created by section 69(1) of the indian partnership act.'7. the impugned order records that no arguments were advanced by the petitioners to justify the maintainability of their applications. the case of the respondents on the other hand was ..... b.a. khan, j.1. petitioners' applications under sections 11 and 9 of the arbitration & conciliation act, 1996 have been dismissed for being barred by section 69 of the indian partnership act by impugned order dated 2.9.2002 passed in suit no. 65/2002 giving rise to this petition.2. petitioners had filed these applications before learned additional district judge for ..... appointment of arbitrator under section 11 and for appointment of receiver under section 9 of the act as a temporary interim measure. their case ..... permitted least judicial intervention in matters involving settlement of disputes which fall within the domain of arbitrator and had also misappreciated and misapplied the provisions of section 69 of the partnership act. he had also wrong reliance on a judgment of a guwahati high court in mohd.monirul hasan (supra) in which a partner of an unregistered firm had filed a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 2004 (HC)

Manjibhai Govindbhai Chikani Vs. Mulji Lakha and Co.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Dec-08-2004

Reported in : AIR2005Guj183

..... , however, made on 04.05.2002, but then once it is recorded, it is effective from 01.01.1975. the learned advocate submitted that, though in section 42 of the indian partnership act, 1932 it is provided that; on happening of certain contigencies, a firm stands dissolved.but then the opening part of the section is:'subject of contract between the partners....' the ..... so-called firm, m/s.mulji lakha & co. had come into existence, the same stood dissolved on the death of shri mulji lakha, in view of section 42 of the indian partnership act, 1932.7.7. the learned senior advocate submitted that, the order passed by the learned judge, injuncting his clients not only from selling, transferring, assigning plot no. 32 of revenue ..... (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs) filed the suit, being special civil suit no. 136 of 2002. it is claimed by the plaintiffs that respondent no. 1 - partnership firm is a registered partnership firm under the indian partnership act, 1932; that the land - the subject matter and dispute, was purchased by the partners of the firm by a registered sale deed dated 13.08.1867 in ..... the name of deceased patel mulji lakha; that on the vary same day, i.e. on 13.08.1967, a partnership deed was also executed between the partners .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 2004 (HC)

Gangabishan Dwarikadas Agrawal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-04-2004

Reported in : 2005(3)MPHT220

..... supra) the apex court considering the definition of person under section 61 (i) (b) of the punjab municipal act held in paras 18 and 19 thus :-'18. '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 for the benefit of all. the section further makes it clear that a firm or partnership is not a ..... reconstituted firm can carry on its business in the same firm's name till dissolution. the law with respect to retiring partners as enacted in the partnership act is to a certain extent a compromise between the strict doctrine of english common law which refuses to see anything in the firm but a collective ..... distinct unit for purposes of assessment. sections 26, 48 and 55 of the act fully bear out this position. these provisions of the act go to show that the technical view of the nature of a partnership under english law or indian law can not be taken in applying the law of income-tax. the ..... true question to decide is one of identity of the unit assessed under the income-tax. the true question to decide is one of identity of the unit assessed under the income-tax act, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 12 2004 (HC)

M. Prabhakar Reddy Vs. Jagdish Prakash Vijayawargi and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-12-2004

Reported in : 2004(2)ALT319

..... is not properly stamped, the same cannot be looked into, and likewise the connection of the petitioner inasmuch as the partnership firm is an unregistered one, having regard to the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, no proceeding can be initiated by or on its behalf against a third party, are concerned, i am of the opinion that they ..... non-speaking order, and is therefore, liable to be set aside. the alleged unregistered partnership deed is improperly stamped, and therefore, cannot be looked into. he submitted that inasmuch as the alleged partnership firm, is an unregistered one, having regard to the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, respondent no. 1 is not entitled to maintain the very suit itself. inasmuch ..... as the petitioner is neither connected with the affairs of the partnership firm nor has anything to do with the partnership firm, he is not a necessary and proper party to the suit, and ..... necessary party to the suit, and more so when it is the specific contention of respondent no. 1 that the properties purchased by the petitioner constitute the properties of the partnership firm, and the court below had rightly allowed the application filed seeking his impleadment as defendant no. 6 to the suit.8. now coming to the contention of the petitioner .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 15 2004 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Delhi Haryana Dall Mills

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-15-2004

Reported in : (2004)187CTR(Del)553; [2004]267ITR478(Delhi)

..... on account of the entire goodwill taken over by them. thus, the accounts were settled and the firm was dissolved in toto. section 40 of the indian partnership act, 1932, provides that a firm may be dissolved with the consent of all the partners or in accordance with a contract between the partners. admittedly, ..... contention is fallacious. it is not a case of mere retirement but of dissolution of the firm and formation of a .new firm under a new partnership agreement. retirement is severance of relationship by some partner(s) from the other partners continuing the said business as before. dissolution of a firm is ..... the firm was dissolved. the cit(a), on appreciation of the materials placed before it, also arrived at a conclusion that there was a new partnership deed executed on 21st may, 1977, with the five partners. it is very clear from what is indicated hereinabove that there was no reconstitution of a ..... , furniture, etc. the other partners were to be paid off on 21st may, 1977, sh. johri mal and sh. shiv lal entered into a new partnership deed taking in three new partners. the it returns were filed for the aforesaid two periods, namely, one return for the period from 1st april, 1977, to ..... said act'), at the instance of the revenue:'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in law in holding that there should he two separate assessments in respect of the periods?'2. so far as the facts are concerned, it transpires that the partnership firm .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 02 2004 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ganga Ram Jati Ram

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-02-2004

Reported in : (2005)197CTR(P& H)458; [2005]279ITR556(P& H)

..... beyond doubt by registration thereof with the registrar of firms, haryana, on 20th march, 1971, under section 53(1) of the indian partnership other words, what had been at best established in the present case is that there was no oral agreement between the eight ..... the owner of the land where gupta rice & general mills carried on its business and no rent was charged in consideration of the share of partnership given to her. she had also executed the mortgage deed of the property to the haryana financial corporation as a co-mortgagor. the only thing ..... ganga ram jati ram, was only firm of commission agents. prior to the disputed agreement dt. 15th march, 1972, there was another undisputed deed of partnership executed between the four partners who were partners in the present assessee-firm but had decided to form another firm in the name of gupta rice & general ..... signed by shri des raj, who was partner in both the firms. along with the application for registration of m/s gupta rice & general mills, a partnership deed executed on 15th march, 1972, was filed. the firm was stated to have eight partners. the ao granted registration to m/s gupta rice & general ..... was legally right in confirming the cancellation of penalty orders passed under section 271(1)(c) of the it act, 1961?'2. the assessee is a partnership firm. in 1972, the partners of the assessee-firm constituted another partnership firm under the name and style of m/s gupta rice & general mills. the assessee filed returns .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2004 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pratik Prints

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Dec-15-2004

Reported in : (2005)193CTR(Guj)361; [2005]274ITR289(Guj)

..... within the meaning of section 34(3)(b) read with section 2(47) of the act. it was held that:'having regard to the above discussion, it seems to us clear that a partnership firm under the indian partnership act, 1932, is not a distinct legal entity apart from the partners constituting it and equally ..... in law the firm as such has no separate rights of its own in the partnership assets and when one talks of the firm's ..... the partners and there is no question of any extinguishment of the firm's rights in the partnership assets amounting to a transfer of assets within the meaning of section 2(47) of the act. in our view, therefore, there is no transfer of assets involved even in the sense of ..... any extinguishment of the firm's rights in the partnership assets when distribution takes place upon dissolution.'7. the decision in case of ..... cit v. vijaya production (supra) was a converse case wherein the assessee's proprietary business was converted into a partnership and the revenue withdrew the development rebate allowed to the proprietor - assessee. the apex court relied upon its own decision in case of sunil siddharthbhai v .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 09 2004 (HC)

V.L. Mahajan and anr. Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad and ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-09-2004

Reported in : 2005(1)ALLMR258; 2004(6)BomCR736; 2004(3)MhLj1030

..... for the petitioners contended that the petitioners at the relevant time were the partners of v.v. constructions company, dealing in construction work. the said firm was registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. the petitioners company was doing construction work for zilla parishad, wardha, for a long time and because of their satisfactory execution of work, their tender for the following works .....

Tag this Judgment!

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