Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 2011 Page 1 of about 183 results (0.170 seconds)

Jul 06 2011 (SC)

M/S. Gammon India Ltd. Vs. Commnr. of Customs

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-06-2011

..... taken by the tribunal is clearly erroneous. it was contended that since a joint venture is a legal entity with all the trap pings of a partnership under the indian partnership act, 1932, the general principles of the said act were applicable to the joint venture and, therefore, any one of the two partners of the joint venture, viz. gammon and atlanta was competent to ..... companies might join to gether. accordingly, the appeal of nhl was allowed and it was held that it was a joint venture company in the nature of a partnership be tween the indian group of companies and singapore based company which had jointly undertaken the commercial venture by contributing assets and sharing risks. applying the principle oflifting the corpo rate veil , ..... concept of joint venture, the court observed thus: 24. the expressionjoint ventureis more frequently used in the united states. it connotes a legal entity in the nature of a partnership engaged in the joint undertaking of a particular transaction for mutual profit or an association of persons or companies jointly undertaking some commercial enterprise wherein all contribute assets and share ..... the matter to this court. explaining the concept of joint venture in detail, it was held that a joint venture is a legal entity in the nature of a partnership en gaged in the joint undertaking of a particular transaction for mutual profit or an association of persons or companies jointly undertaking some commercial enterprise wherein all contributed assets and .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 04 2011 (HC)

Sanjeev C Bordia and 1 Vs Sunilkumar Mohansingh Bordia

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : May-04-2011

..... , submitted that what the ld. arbitrator was called upon to decide was only the issue 'as to whether the tenancy right was asset of the partnership firm or not, as contemplated under section 14 of the indian partnership act. there was no dispute regarding possession or rent between the landlord and the tenant. it is, therefore, submitted that the city court erred in coming ..... to the conclusion that the dispute involved in this matter, falls within the four corners of section 28 of the bombay rent act.5.2. mr. mihir joshi, ld ..... kanoji tankar v/s. santaram kanoji tankar reported in [1969] 3 s.c.c. 555. hon'ble the apex court elaborately discussing the provisions contained in section 14 of the partnership act, observed that under section 14, property belonging to a person, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, does not on the person entering into a ..... 'ble the apex court relied upon other circumstantial evidence. hon'ble the apex court also took into consideration section 14 of the partnership act regarding the property of the firm. hon'ble the apex court observed that in absence of partnership deed, there was no direct evidence, it was difficult for the court to arrive at a finding that the tenancy rights were .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 2011 (HC)

Mangilal Jagrupji JaIn Vs. Shri Bharat Shankarlal Dhakad (Huf) and ors ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-15-2011

..... m. abdul rahiman and anr.1 as cited by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent referring to section 69(2) of the indian partnership act and the submission that in every matter, the plea of non-registration of the firm that itself cannot be the foundation to reject the plaint ..... and evidence. it is unregistered till this date in view of the disputes between the parties. the submission revolving around section 69(2) of the indian partnership act cannot be the foundation to reject the plaint, in the present case. 8. the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, ..... in terms of rule 13." 6. it is also necessary to consider at this stage the object and purpose of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 (mah. amendment) and the effect of non-registration of firm and the averments so raised along with the document filed on record, with ..... (the firm), of which the plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the partners. the firm is not registered. therefore considering section 69(2) of the indian partnership act (mah. amendment), the suit as filed in the individual capacity is not maintainable. the defence was that the plaintiffs and the petitioner individually invested the ..... in question was executed, though the parties have signed the agreement/document as partners of the firm. the effect of non- registration of such partnership firm just cannot be overlooked, but subject to the averments made in the plaint only. it is very clear from the averments read with .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 2011 (HC)

Shree Chandrakant B Patel. Vs. Department of Post and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jan-21-2011

..... . a banking company, a company, a corporation, an association, institution or body registered as a society under any law for the time being in force, a firm registered under the indian partnership act, 1932 (9 of 1932), a local authority, a cooperative society/ bank/ institution registered as such under any law for the time being in force could have purchased kvp was done .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 19 2011 (HC)

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and anr. Vs. the Direc ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Sep-19-2011

..... income tax officer, [1981] 129 itr 295 (sc), the supreme court has examined the scope of the term "business" in the general law or in common parlance as well as indian partnership act, 1932 and held as under:- "the expression "business" does not necessarily mean trade or manufacture only. it is being used as including within its scope professions, vocations and callings ..... said that the definition of business given in s. 45 of the partnership act, 1890 (53 & 54 vic. c. 39), was an extended definition intended for the purpose of that act only. section 45 of that act says: " . . . . . . . . . the expression ' business ' includes every trade, occupation, or profession. " section 2(b) of the indian partnership act, 1932, also defines "business" thus: "business ' includes every trade, occupation and ..... as a dealer...." 24. in cit versus lahore electric supply company limited, [1966] 60 itr 1 (sc) it was held that the term "business", as contemplated under the indian income tax act, 1922, contemplates activity capable of producing profit which can be taxed. a closed business when the person has no intention of continuing or intention to resume, cannot be inferred ..... of the journal is carried on for profit and the purpose is non-charitable. we may take by way of illustration another example given by krishna iyer j. in the indian chamber of commerce [1975] 101 itr 796 (sc) where a blood bank collects blood on payment and supplies blood for a higher price on commercial basis. undoubtedly, in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 10 2011 (HC)

Shri Pal Singh Vs. Shri Dharshan Singh

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-10-2011

..... to go into the said issue. in the second judgment, the plea raised was that the assets of the partnership firm should have been dealt with under section 48 of the indian partnership act, 1932 and the proceeds be disbursed to the partners in accordance with their respective shares. this plea had been ..... pw-1/8) also makes reference it as a partition deed. such a document requires a compulsory registration under section 17 and 49 of the indian registration act, 1908; in the absence of which this document cannot be lead in evidence. on this ground alone the impugned judgment is liable to be ..... revenue authority had been enabled to carry out the mutation the appeal was dismissed.13. these proceedings clearly show that the parties had in fact acted upon this settlement dated 14.4.1970; they had treated this agreement as the basis and foundation of their intention to claim sanad/transfer of ..... counsel for the respondent has however countered the argument of the appellant on merits by submitting that the agreement dated 14.4.1970 was always acted upon and as such did not require any registration.10. the preliminary submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant carries substantial force and ..... argument which had admittedly been raised in the courts below. the legal submission being that the provisions of section 17 and 49 of the registration act would bar the reading in evidence of such a document in the absence of registration.9. there is no opposition to this preliminary submission. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 06 2011 (SC)

Ms. Gammon India Ltd. Vs. Commnr. of Customs, Mumbai

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-06-2011

..... by the tribunal is clearly erroneous. it was contended that since a joint venture is a legal entity with all the trap pings of a partnership under the indian partnership act, 1932, the gen eral principles of the said act were applicable to the joint venture and, therefore, any one of the two partners of the joint venture, viz. gam mon and atlanta was competent ..... companies might join to gether. accordingly, the appeal of nhl was allowed and it was held that it was a joint venture company in the nature of a partnership be tween the indian group of companies and singapore based company which had jointly undertaken the commercial venture by contributing assets and sharing risks. applying the principle of lifting the corpo rate veil ..... of joint venture, the court observed thus: 24. the expression joint venture is more frequently used in the united states. it connotes a legal entity in the nature of a partnership engaged in the joint undertaking of a particular transaction for mutual profit or an association of persons or companies jointly undertaking some commercial enterprise wherein all contribute assets and share ..... brought the matter to this court. explaining the concept of joint venture in detail, it was held that a joint venture is a legal entity in the nature of a partnership en gaged in the joint undertaking of a particular transaction for mutual profit or an association of persons or companies jointly undertaking some commercial enterprise wherein all contributed assets and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 2011 (HC)

M/S. Kamangar and Company Vs. M/S. A.L. Byahatti and Sons and Others

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

Decided on : Jan-19-2011

Reported in : 2011ILR(Kar)1576

..... 4 agreed to share the profit of business carried on by all or any of them, acting for all, by constituting a partnership as defined under section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932. the partnership deed of defendants 2 to 4 is at ex.d-8. the said partnership was alleged to have been reconstituted on 02.09.1999 by the voluntary retirement of the 3rd ..... defendant. ex.d-9 has not been signed by the 3rd defendant. upon constitution of 1st defendant partnership firm, it was notified and ..... having not been notified to the registrar of firms as required under section 32(3) of the act and there being no public notice as mandated under section 72 of the act, dismissal of the suit by the learned trial judge, by relying upon reconstituted partnership deed (ex.d-9), without even taking into constitution and appreciating the deed of acknowledgment executed by ..... a partner at the time of the transaction and also at the filing of the suit and hence, his acts and deeds are not binding on defendants 1, 2 and 4. it was stated that, 3rd defendant retired voluntarily from 1st defendant partnership firm on 02.09.1999 and the cheque for rs.25,000/- has not been issued by the partner .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 13 2011 (TRI)

M/S. Ravi Teja Communication Vs. M/S. Zee Turner Ltd.

Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT

Decided on : May-13-2011

..... his control room has been burnt out only a few days back. 27. with great respect we may observe that in support of its decision neither any provisions of the indian partnership act was taken into consideration nor any precedent was noticed. if there is no bar for a person to carry on a business in his individual capacity, although he is a ..... is not and could not have been a joint venture undertaking and in any event having regard to the provisions contained in sub-section 2 of section 69 of the indian partnership act, it could not have enforced the so-called mou being an unregistered firm, it must be held, that the respondent no.2 has no locus standi to intervene in the ..... . tushar rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2, however, urged that as a partner of a partnership firm is an agent and having regard to the fact that in terms of section 16 (b) of the indian partnership act, the partner is to account for and paid to the firm all profits made by him, if he carries on any ..... court in ashok transport agency v. awadhesh kumar and anr. air1999sc1484 wherein this court stated the law in the following terms: 6. a partnership firm differs from a proprietary concern owned by an individual. a partnership is governed by the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932. though a partnership is not a juristic person but order xxx, rule 1, cpc enables the partners of a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 03 2011 (TRI)

M/S Hathway Space Vision and Others Vs. Vivekanand Rao and Others

Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT

Decided on : Jun-03-2011

..... basic fact of the matter from petition no. 220 (c) of 2009. the petitioner is a firm (the said firm) constituted and registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. the terms and conditions are contained in the deed of partnership dated 27.01.2005. the partners of the petitioner firm are (i) hathway internet satellite pvt. ltd. (hereafter to be referred to as hispl ..... in regard to the supply of signals to respondent no.1 from the network of the petitioner being not covered by the partnership agreement, the question of applicability of the provisions of section 91 and 92 of the indian evidence act does not arise. sub rules(1) and (2) of rule 11 of the cable television networks rules, 1994 read as under: 11 ..... and respondent no.1 whether as a partner or in the individual capacity is not the subject matter of the deed of partnership. we, therefore, fail to see any reason as to how sections 91 and 92 of the indian evidence act are relevant for our purpose. mr. kathpalia relies upon a decision in dinkerrai lalit kumar v. sukhdayal rambilas reported in air ..... address of the owners of the stbs. 5. as the rights of the parties flowed from the deed of partnership, any contention raised contrary to or inconsistent with the terms thereof shall be hit bysections 91 and 92 of the indian evidence act.6. the contentions of the respondent that their names do not appear in the application for grant of permission filed .....

Tag this Judgment!


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