Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 2007 Page 2 of about 291 results (0.066 seconds)

Sep 25 2007 (HC)

Smt. K. Vasantha Kumari Vs. D. Devendra Reddy

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-25-2007

Reported in : 2008CriLJ1001; 2008(1)AIRKarR398; AIR2008NOC696; 2008CriLJ1001;

..... overlooked section 69(3)(a) of the indian partnership act (reproduced below) which could have furnished proper interpretation of the matter in issue:69. effect of non-registration.- (1) x x x(2) x x x(3) the provisions of ..... behalf or against the firm in respect of a contract with the firm to consider the claim under section 69(1) or (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act. on determination of the partnership, the agreement between the complainant and the accused had come into effect and the cheques were allegedly issued in furtherance of that agreement. the learned trial judge also ..... which the learned trial judge has held that the offence has not been proved, the reference has been made by the learned trial judge to section 69(2) of the indian partnership act. the said provision provides no suit to enforce a right arising from contract shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party ..... . p-4 (on demand promissory note) had been executed by the accused, but went into the question of legality of the partnership firm operating without registration and observing that in view of the provisions of section 69(2) of indian partnership act, the firm being an unregistered firm, all transactions were illegal. he also observed that oral evidence of pw 1 was not in .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 17 2007 (SC)

Gannmani Anasuya and ors. Vs. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-17-2007

Reported in : AIR2007SC2380; (2007)5MLJ1273(SC); (2008)149PLR595; 2007(8)SCALE191; (2007)10SCC296; 2007AIRSCW4233; 2007LawHerald(SC)2505

..... . the learned counsel would contend that article 5 of the limitation act, 1963 would not be applicable in a case of this nature as the same refers to a dissolution of partnership and as in this case, the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 are not attracted, only article 113 thereof would apply. 18 ..... undivided family and the business concerns were being run the appellants herein. in view of the fact that profits were being reinvested into the partnership business, it is idle to contend that the accounts were settled particularly when the business was found to be a running one by the ..... other purposes. 15. the learned counsel would submit that the high court has also not bestowed any consideration in respect of the execution of deed of partnership dated 06.03.1978 entered into by and between the appellants with her daughter wherein defendant no. 1 (respondent no. 3) is a witness. ..... own handwriting without anything more, the effect thereof may have to be considered having regard to the provisions contained in section 145 of the indian evidence act in terms whereof the only requirement would be that his attention is drawn before a writing can be proved. these relevant facts have not ..... have been authored by one of the parties, in our opinion, was required to be taken into consideration. 23. in terms of section 58 of the indian evidence act, 1872, a thing admitted need not be proved. [see shreedhar govind kamerkar v. yesahwant govind kamerkar andanr. : 2006(14)scale174 ] 24. it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 2007 (HC)

Yogesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Miss Anuradha Rangarajan

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-22-2007

Reported in : 2007(2)ARBLR446(Delhi); 139(2007)DLT71; 2007(95)DRJ581

..... of the debts and liabilities of the firm, and to have the surplus distributed among the partners according to their rights. (section 46 of the indian partnership act). the mode of settlement of the accounts is prescribed under section 48 of the partnership act. it is these rights that a partner of a dissolved firm exercises, when he asks for rendition of accounts of the ..... from the other. 18. to my mind these communications on both sides constitute acknowledgment of liability to render accounts to the other within the meaning of section 18 of the partnership act. i may refer to the decision rendered in hukumat sing kundanmal v. nenumal rejhumal air 1928 sind 45, wherein it was held that where the plaintiff in a suit for ..... partnership business from the other partners. 14. to determine whether section 18 of the limitation act applies to the present case, one has to determine, whether the respondent ..... 32, 38 and 39 of the majority judgment.11. the parties agreed to dissolve the partnership w.e.f 27.3.2002. the period of limitation prescribed under the limitation act for filing a suit relating to accounts and share in the profits of a dissolved partnership firm is three years and the starting point of limitation is the date of dissolution (article .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 2007 (HC)

B. Narashimha Rao Vs. T. Raghavalu Naidu and Company, Rep. by Its Part ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-20-2007

Reported in : 2007(3)CTC356; (2007)3MLJ641

..... which has been entered into between him and the partners of the reconstituted firm. in this connection, it will be relevant to extract section 32 of the indian partnership act, 1932. section 32 of the said act reads as follows:32. retirement of a partner.-- (1) a partner may retire,--(a) with the consent of all the other partners,(b) in accordance with an ..... been instituted by the respondent against the firm and the petitioner is perfectly valid.(b) as per section 32(3) of the indian partnership act, 1932 (hereinafter called 'the act'), the partners continue to be liable to third parties if any act done by them prior to their retirement.(c) the petitioner has not given any notice as contemplated under section 72 of the said ..... the petitioner retired from the firm on 1.8.2001. hence, the petitioner, in spite of the fact that he has retired from the partnership firm on 1.8.2001, is liable to third parties for any act of the firm done before his retirement. since the petitioner has retired from the firm only on 1.8.2001, subsequent to the cause ..... express agreement by the partners, or(c) where the partnership is at will, by giving notice in writing to all the other partners of his intention to retire.(2) a retiring partner may be discharged from any liability to any third party for acts of the firm done before his retirement by an agreement made by him with .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 2007 (HC)

Raj Kumar Sharma Vs. Prasanta Kumar Chandra and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-05-2007

Reported in : 2007(4)ARBLR37(Cal)

..... by an application dated 19.07.2006 the petitioner challenged the maintainability of the said application under section 9 of the said act in view of section 69 of the indian partnership act as the partnership firm is unregistered which was disposed of by the impugned order.3. mr. dey, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that ..... under the purview of 'other proceeding' being barred is not maintainable in view of sub-section (3) of section 69 of the indian partnership act. on the other hand, mr. chakraborty, learned counsel for the ops, relying upon the case of firm ashok traders v. gurumukh das saluja ..... for in an application under section 9 is neither in a suit nor a right arising from a contract. the right arising from the partnership deed or conferred by the partnership act is being enforced in the arbitral tribunal, the court under section 9 is only formulating interim measures, so as to protect the right ..... under adjudication before the arbitral tribunal from being frustrated. section 69 of the partnership act has no bearing on the right of a party to an arbitration clause to file an application under section 9 of the arbitration and conciliation ..... on the right of a party to an arbitration clause to file an application under section 9 of the said act.4. sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 69 of the partnership act lay down the effect of non-registration and strike at the root of jurisdiction of the court to entertain a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 24 2007 (HC)

Sanjay Rooplal Jaiswal Vs. Gangulal Dhannulal Jaiswal and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-24-2007

Reported in : 2008(1)ALLMR87; 2008(1)MhLj161

..... . yousuf aquil v. sultana abdul ahad narvel : 2003(5)bomcr807 . it is held that an application under section 9 can be considered in case of unregistered partnership firm in view of section 69 of the indian partnership act. application under section 11 is for appointment of the sole arbitrator or arbitral tribunal. application under section 9 can be filed seeking interim measures. in my ..... view, judgment of the division bench of this court can be considered even in case of an application for appointment of arbitrator under section 11(5) and (6) of the act. in this ..... view of the matter, even the deed of partnership, unregistered document, can be accepted and considered for an application under section 11 of the act of 1996.10. at this stage, i am directing the parties to suggest name of arbitrator, if ..... the business. he has also invited my attention to partnership deed, wherein, partnership in favour of the petitioner is referred as 40 per cent. according to him, the petition is devoid of substance and be rejected.3. section 11 of the act of 1996 reads as under:11. appointment of arbitrators. - (1) a person of any nationality may be an arbitrator, unless otherwise .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 26 2007 (HC)

Able Associates and anr. Vs. K.S. Ramakrishna Rao

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-26-2007

Reported in : 2007(6)ALD327; 2007(5)ALT317; 2007(4)ARBLR219(AP)

..... finance ltd. : (2000)8scc151 in this regard. learned counsel would rely on u.p. state sugar corporation ltd. v. jain construction co. : air2004sc4335 , and on section 69(1) of the indian partnership act, to contend that arbitral proceedings cannot be maintained by an unregistered firm or any person suing as a partner thereof against any person who is, or has been, a partner ..... dissolved firm, and for payments agreed upon in the dissolution deed, the applicant was entitled for protection under section 69(3)(a) undine bar under section 69(1) of the partnership act would not apply.5. sri g. ramagopal, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that non-compliance with the statutory requirements of section 11(5) of ..... these facts were to the knowledge of the applicant and, as m/s. able associates was not a registered firm, legal proceedings were barred under section 69(1) of the partnership act. respondent would deny receipt of the notice dated 18.10.2006 and would submit that, even otherwise, the alleged notice dated 18.10.2006 was a notice demanding payment of ..... would suffice if this court were to decide on the consequences of non-compliance with section 11(5) of the act and section 69(1) of the partnership act.6. before examining the consequences, of non-compliance of section 11(5) of the act, it is useful to extract the arbitration clause in the deed of dissolution dated 03.11.2003 and the relevant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 2007 (HC)

Danesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Inspg. Asst. Commissioner (inv. Branch) and ors ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Dec-04-2007

Reported in : (2008)13VST461(Ker)

..... be referred and therefore, the said section is extracted hereunder:45. liability for acts of partners done after dissolution.--(1) notwithstanding the dissolution of a firm, the partners continue to ..... produce any such partnership deed with his wife as claimed by him. in these circumstances the question to be considered is whether the department is entitled to proceed against the partners for recovery of arrears of penalty even after retirement. in this regard section 45 of the indian partnership act, 1932 has to ..... dissolution:.(2) notices under sub-section (1) may be given by any partner.4. the principle laid down in section 45 of the partnership act is that partners who hold out to be members of the firm to third parties will continue to be liable as such, if retirement or ..... two partners out of three was not within the knowledge of the department. it is made mandatory in clause (d) above that after a partnership is dissolved and business is taken over by an individual, such individual has to take separate registration to continue business as registered dealer. the ..... a copy of the memorandum of association and articles of association along with the application for registration.(b) if a partner retires without the partnership being dissolved thereby he shall send to the registering authority a declaration in form 3 within 30 days of his retirement, along with a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 23 2007 (HC)

Sarva Shramik Sangh Vs. Janprabha Offset Works and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-23-2007

Reported in : (2008)ILLJ271Bom

..... as pleaded by respondents 1 and 2 and admitted by appellant's witness, respondent no. 2 is a trust established under bombay public trust act and respondent no. 1 is a partnership firm registered under indian partnership act. as such respondents 1 and 2 are two separate and distinct entities. industrial tribunal did not take this aspect into consideration while recording finding ..... that1 respondents 1 and 2 is one establishment. there is a dispute about relationship as employer and employee. the trust and partnership cannot be treated to be ..... denied that they are part and parcel of one establishment. according to them, respondent no. 1 printing press is a partnership firm registered under partnership act and respondent no. 2 is a trust registered under the bombay public trust act and are different entities. one complaint against them is not maintainable and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on account ..... a branch of each other. appellant union is not connected with the industry. the relationship as employer and employee being in dispute, complaint under section 28 of mrtu and pulp act is not maintainable. in support of this contention, he has placed .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 17 2007 (SC)

Tanna and Modi Vs. C.i.T., Mumbai Xxv and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-17-2007

Reported in : AIR2007SC2301; (2007)210CTR(SC)273; [2007]292ITR209(SC); 2007(8)SCALE511

..... by the commissioner of income tax, mumbai city xxv refusing to entertain an application under voluntary disclosure scheme.3. appellant is a firm registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. it is also registered under the income tax act, 1961. a search and seizure proceeding was conducted against three individuals smt. kuntalaxmi tanna, shri kashyap tanna and shri kuntey tanna. office of the appellant ..... respect ofdisclosure by the company, no director of the company shall be prosecuted.15. there cannot be any doubt that under the income tax act, a firm whether registered or not under the provision of the indian partnership act is treated as a separate assessee. an order of assessment is passed on the basis of income derived by a person. his total income may ..... -a-vis its partners, however, as is understood in common parlance or in terms of the provisions of the partnership act, 1932, in a case of this nature, may have to be taken into consideration for judging the validity of action. under the partnership act, a partner represents a firm. he has an implied authority in terms of section 19 thereof and, thus, any ..... action taken by a partner of a firm vis-a-vis. the firm, unless otherwise specific binds the firm itself. it is one thing to say that for the purpose of invoking the provisions of the indian income tax act and other .....

Tag this Judgment!


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