Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 274 results (0.061 seconds)

May 06 2005 (HC)

Shri Anant Purushottam Athavale Vs. Govind Purushottam Athavale and or ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : May-06-2005

Reported in : AIR2005Bom301; 2005(3)ALLMR89; 2006(2)BomCR494; 2005(3)MhLj384

..... between the partners for the duration of their partnership, or for the determination of their partnership, the partnership is 'partnership at will'. . mr. godbole for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the supreme court ..... question, so far as this appeal is concerned, is, whether the partnership is at will as per clause 2 or whether clauses 11 and 12 are over-riding clause 2 of the partnership deed. my attention was drawn by mr. godbole in this regard to the indian partnership act, particularly section 7 which defines 'partnership at will' as under : where no provision is made by contract ..... lacs and, since the respondents neither giving accounts nor giving him any share, he was entitled for appointment of court receiver. 5. counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the partnership has extensive movable and immovable properties and if due share of the plaintiff and his interest is not protected, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss which will not be compensated ..... 1996 passed by mrs. justice k.k. baam and by that order the respondents were to act as an agent of the court receiver upon such terms and condition as the court receiver may deem fit. 4. counsel for the petitioner contended that the partnership was at will and it can be dissolved by any partner by giving a notice to .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 27 2005 (HC)

Ashok Kumar Mittal Vs. Ashwani Kapoor and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-27-2005

Reported in : AIR2005Delhi323

..... commitments come to an end. he shall take all steps for the winding up of the business of the firm in terms of provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932. during the period the hotel remains under the control of the receiver, none of the parties shall try to interfere with his duties. they ..... mittal do not advance his plea for running the business to the exclusion of the other partners for the reason that neither the provisions of the indian partnership act nor the principles of equity, justice and good conscience permit the court to countenance unfair advantage to those who take law in their hands to gain ..... between the partners and distributing the assets/cash left after meeting the liabilities of dissolved firm. this is the purport of above referred provisions of indian partnership act. the hijacking of the business of a dissolved firm by one of the partners and its running by him to the exclusion of others by ..... hotel now and according to ashwini kapoor, he and his son have been ousted from the business forcibly. section 43 of the indian partnership act, 1932 clearly says that where a partnership is at will, the firm may be dissolved by any partner giving notice in writing to other partners of his intention to dissolve ..... of other partners and only winding up proceedings have to be undertaken in terms of sections 43, 45, 47 and 53 of the indian partnership act. it is argued that sections 41(c) and 41(e) do not permit the grant of any injunction in such situations to permit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 20 2005 (HC)

Sudex, Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Gift-tax

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-20-2005

Reported in : (2007)210CTR(AP)529; [2007]290ITR511(AP)

..... transfer much less gift in the said transaction.4. the learned commissioner (cgt) being of the view that under the partnership act, minors cannot be taken as partners, examined the matter in the light of sections 30 and 32 of the indian partnership act, 1932, and held that the case law applicable to the retirement of partners is not applicable to the minor withdrawing from ..... make certain observations on the basis of the well-settled position in law with regard to the partnership firm and the rights of the partners with respect to the assets of the firm.12. it is by now well-settled that the partnership firm under the indian partnership act, 1932, is not a distinct legal entity apart from the partners constituting it. a firm has ..... no separate rights of its own in the partnership assets. in law, any reference to the firm's property or firm's assets is in ..... to partners is not applicable to the case of a minor withdrawing from the benefits of partnership. let us, therefore, consider the correctness of the said conclusions. section 30 of the indian partnership act, 1932, to the extent relevant, is extracted hereunder:30. minors admitted to the benefits of partnership.--(1) a person who is a minor according to the law to which he is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 30 2005 (SC)

Ashutosh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-30-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3434; 2005(4)AWC3869N(SC); IV(2005)BC13(SC); 2006(1)BomCR760; 2005(4)CTC408; [2006(2)JCR155(SC)]; JT2005(8)SC58; 2005(4)KLT264(SC); (2005)7SCC308

..... failed to appear;provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affected the provisions of section 30 of the indian partnership act 1932 (9 of 1932).(2) where the decree-holder claims to be entitled to cause the decree to be executed against any person other ..... the present context which are reproduced hereunder:'section 24- effect of notice to the acting partner - notice to the partner who habitually acts in the business of the firm of any matter relating to the ..... other. the partner is always liable for partnership debt unless there is implied or express restriction. in the instant case, notice was duly served on smt. dhanwanti devi and her husband at house no. 80b , block sri ganganagar. sections 24 & 25 of the indian partnership act, 1932 can be usefully referred to in ..... to the second question. in paragraph 18, r.c. lahoti, j. observed as under:'the high court has relied on section 25 of the partnership act, 1932 for the purpose of holding the partners as individuals liable to meet the tax liability of the firm. section 25 provides that every partner is ..... court. this court while allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the high court observed as follows:'section 25 of the partnership act does not make a distinction between a continuing partner and an erstwhile partner. its principle is clear and specific, viz., that every partner is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 25 2005 (HC)

Santu Prasad Das and anr. Vs. Eastern Coal Field Limited and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Jun-25-2005

Reported in : AIR2006Jhar24; 2005(3)BLJR1709; [2005(3)JCR416(Jhr)]

..... (in m.s. no. 40/87) with respect to contract nos. 5 and 6 of 1978 as barred under section 30, rule 2 read with section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, apart from evidences oral and documentary, which have been discussed in detail by the court below.11. so far as the relief granted in respect to contract nos. 4 and ..... the firm, is found to be based on legal aspect. the registration of a partnership firm before the registrar of firm is conditions precedent for filing a suit by a partnership firm or by any of its partner on behalf of the firms under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act. as such, i find no illegality in deciding this issue by the court ..... the work done and completed by the plaintiffs (appellants). it is well settled that the recovery of amount advanced to any borrower comes under the domain of public demand recovery act, and therefore, the banking institution, dealing with the public money, cannot be injuncted from realizing the same through the process of law by any order in suit out of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 2005 (HC)

Flowfast Engineers (India) Vs. D and H Secheron Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. a ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-04-2005

Reported in : AIR2005Bom204; 2005(2)BomCR497; 2005(2)MhLj482; [2005]64SCL559(Bom)

..... are framed against which i have recorded the findings for the reasons stated below :-issues findings1. whether plaintiffs' firm is registered under in the affirmative.the indian partnership act? if notwhat is its effect?2. do plaintiffs prove that there was a concluded in the negative.contract of sale of the suit property for rs.8 ..... ,000/- was paid by the partners on 30-11-1977 on behalf of the firm. he then admits that during the course of the business of the partnership firm, they used to make payment mostly by cheques. there is no reason why the payment of rs. 2,00,000/- made on 30-11-1977 ..... business, the partners of the plaintiffs, viz. he himself and manoharlal approached defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4. as stated earlier, defendant no. 2 is a partnership firm. defendant no. 3 is the director of the defendant no. 1 company as well as partner of defendant no. 2 firm. defendant no. 4 is ..... 020. the business of the defendant no. 1 private company is as manufacturer of electrodes and other allied articles. the business of the defendant no. 2 partnership firm is as financiers and builders. the defendant no. 3 is one of the directors of the defendant no. 1 company and also one of the partners ..... 30-11-1977 for purchase of basement-cum-godown premises as described in exhibit 'a' annexed to the plaint. 2. the plaintiffs are a partnership firm. they are carrying on business as manufacturers of and dealers in engineering goods. the defendant no. 1 is a private limited company. defendant no. 2 .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 2005 (HC)

Jayesh Pandya Vs. Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : May-06-2005

Reported in : 2005(5)BomCR725

..... i held that two preliminary issues are answered as under :issue no. 1: the suit is not maintainable in view of section 69 of the indian partnership act.issue no. 2: the suit is not maintainable in as much as the plaintiff has filed the present suit without withdrawing the suit no. 1991 ..... not registered under section 59 and, therefore, the suit could not have been instituted against the defendant in view of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act. this defect was not a formal defect and, therefore, permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the suit and granting liberty to file a fresh suit was ..... a fresh suit on the same cause of action was rejected. when the suit was filed, the firm was not registered under section 59 of the indian partnership act, 1932, it was registered on 28th april 2000 i.e. after the suit was filed. therefore, the plaintiff wanted to withdraw the suit with ..... . i had earlier framed two issues as preliminary issues. they are :(1) whether the suit is maintainable in view of section 69 of the indian partnership act; in the said order section 67 was quoted. by consent it was corrected.(2) whether the suit is maintainable in as much as the plaintiff ..... registrar within a period of one year from the date of constitution of the firm. this maharashtra amendment came into force by the indian partnership (maharashtra amendment) act, 1984 (maharashtra act xxix of 1984) with effect from 1.1.1985. therefore, he contended that the registration could not have been granted in 2000 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 21 2005 (HC)

P.H. Hamid Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-21-2005

Reported in : (2005)198CTR(Bom)441; [2005]278ITR112(Bom)

..... to carry on its business. it is true that the indian partnership act goes further than the english partnership act, 1890, in recognising that a firm may possess a personality distinct from the persons constituting it, the law in india in that respect ..... . ltd. [1948] 18 comp cas 205, the supreme court observed thus [1979] 120 itr 58 :'before the board it was argued that under the indian partnership act, 1932, a firm is recognised as an entity apart from the persons constituting it, and that the entity continues so long as the firm exists and continues ..... judgment of the apex court in the case of malabar fisheries co. v. cit : [1979]120itr49(sc) . mr. kotangle submits that the 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. according to him, when one talks of the firm's property or the firm's assets all ..... a matter of procedure. it is also true that the firm's property is recognised in more than one way (sections 14 and 15 of the partnership act) but only as that which is 'joint estate' of all the partners as distinguished from the 'separate estate' of any of them, and not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 2005 (HC)

Penumatcha Achyutharamaraju and ors. Vs. Padmanabhuni Venkata Subbaiah ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-21-2005

Reported in : 2005(3)ALD792

..... who are individually called partners are collectively called a firm, and the name under which their business is carried on is called the firm name, see section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932. order 30, rule 1 of the code of civil procedure enables two or more persons claiming or being liable as partners and carrying on business in india to sue ..... true,9. on issue no. 2 the lower court held that debt incurred by 1st defendant-firm is binding on all the partners in view of section 22 of the indian partnership act. condition no. 6 of ex.b2 lays down that the 2nd defendant should manage the joint business of the partners and the other partners should assist him, but condition no ..... that all the defendants were shown as partners and the licence to run the rice mill was obtained in the name of the partnership firm.38. under section 22 of the indian partnership act in order to bind a firm, an act or instrument done or executed by a partner or other person on behalf of the firm shall be done or executed in the ..... his department has no knowledge that 1st defendant-firm orally stopped business from 30-11-1977, unless it is established that partnership is dissolved as per the terms and conditions of the partnership deed or as per the procedure contemplated under the indian partnership act and exs.x1 and x2 are also subsequent to the date of execution of ex.a1-pronote, they are liable .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 22 2005 (HC)

Chandrayya Mutwayya Irabatti Vs. Sidram Ganpat Ingale

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-22-2005

Reported in : AIR2006Bom76; 2006(1)ALLMR417; 2006(1)BomCR36

..... , is maintainable. 6. in my view, therefore, the impugned judgment and order holding that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by section 69 of the indian partnership act is not according to law and is required to be quashed and set aside. accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside. rule in the writ petition ..... of registration of the firm 'm/s. asian gas agency'. the trial court concluded that the suit was barred by provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932.2. the case of the plaintiff as per his averments in the plaint was briefly as follows:that the plaintiff and the defendant were partners of ..... being seven partners of this firm. there is however, another point which goes to the root of the matter. under section 69 of the indian partnership act, the suits which are barred by section 69(1) are suits to enforce a right arising out of a contract and to enforce a right conferred by ..... to the two kinds of suits contemplated by section 69(1) and 69(2) of the partnership act, 1932.4. in the said section 69 of the indian partnership act, an amendment introducing section 69(2)(a) was introduced by maharashtra act 29 of 1984 (brought into effect on 1.1.1985), which brought about certain changes and ..... the indian partnership act. we are not concerned with section 69(2) of the said act in the present case as the suit in this case was not against a third party. on perusal of section 69( .....

Tag this Judgment!


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