Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 2016 Page 1 of about 149 results (0.055 seconds)

Oct 18 2016 (HC)

V.K.S. Transport Vs. The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Sup ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-18-2016

..... and on 10.12.2014, one of the partners, i.e., s.dinesh babu had retired from the partnership and as such, there were two partners. but no registration or renewal of the said partnership firm had taken place. under section 63 of the indian partnership act, 1932, it is provided that, when a change occurs in the constitution of a registered firm any incoming ..... dated 22.6.2007 and 6.7.2015 and the pan card which stood only in the name of the partnership firm. he pointed out that as per section 69a of the indian partnership act, 1932, it is not required that every time a new partner is inducted, fresh registration has to be applied and obtained, but suffice to send the intimation about the ..... existence at the earliest point of time and whether the same continued to be in existence from the year 2007 and that as per section 90 to 92 of the indian evidence act, an unregistered document cannot be allowed to assail the contents of the registered document and that as there was noncompliance of the terms of the tender by the appellant ..... 2007 would cease even if it is not renewed. he pointed out that subsequent changes in the constitution of the partnership firm will not any affect its registration in view of sections 58 and 59 of the act which clearly provide that a partnership firm once registered, it stands registered permanently and if there is any change in the partners, the same does .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 2016 (HC)

Hemantkumar Ptilokani and Others Vs. The State rep. by its the Deputy ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

Decided on : Aug-22-2016

..... been paying royalty to perumalappan (not to m/s.welcome match works) 19. when a partner dies, subject to any contract to the contrary, partnership is dissolved. section 42 of the indian partnership act, 1932 ( act ) provides for dissolution of partnership on occurrence of certain contingencies which includes death of the partner as one of those contingencies. plain reading of the section 42 would show that ..... , subject to the contract between the partners, a firm stands dissolved by death of a partner. however, in cases where the terms of the partnership deed are silent ..... the hon'ble supreme court has held in paragraph no.5 as follows; it seems to us that looking to the scheme of the indian act no other view can reasonably be taken. the whole concept of partnership is to embark upon a joint venture and for that purpose to bring in as capital money or even property including immovable property. once that ..... under which, the ownership's right has been given to the sons of perumalappan. perumalappan died on 07.10.2004. since then, the partnership firm m/s.welcom match works did not function. the license under the arms act, which was in the name of s.k.perumalappan was not renewed. there were no filing of income tax returns and sales tax .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 21 2016 (HC)

G. Sathyan Vs. B. Vasudevan and Another

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-21-2016

..... memorandum of understanding by both the parties, directed the assets to be sold in auction between the partners after dissolution of the firm under sections 46 and 48 of the indian partnership act. therefore, the above contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is not sustainable and the said decision is also not applicable to the facts of this case. 19 ..... the business for six months till the prospective buyer is found out. the learned arbitrator after analysing the terms of the contract and the relevant provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 held that the partnership assets of only two partners stood dissolved on the retirement of one of the partners in the light of the legal and factual position stated therein. 10. the ..... and to settle the accounts of the firm between the parties in terms of sections 46 and 48 of the indian partnership act, 1932. the learned arbitrator has further ordered that the assets of the partnership firm is to be sold to the highest bidder in the auction to be held between the appellant and the first respondent and the successful bidder is permitted ..... . no doubt, interim order was passed in the o.p filed under section 34 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996, appointing a chartered engineer to value the assets of the partnership firm and he also filed the report, dated 24.06.2014. taking advantage of the interim order passed by the learned single judge and the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 2016 (HC)

M/s. Otoklin Global Business, A Partnership Firm and Others Vs. The St ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-28-2016

..... jhaveri were the directors of respondent no.3. 8. the petitioners have set out as to how after formation of petitioner no.1-firm in 1997, the registration under the indian partnership act, 1932 was obtained. they have also explained as to how the registration under various other laws, which is necessary for carrying on business, came to be obtained. the petitioners ..... the same be quashed and set aside. this relief is sought in the following facts and circumstances. 3. the first petitioner before us is claiming to be a partnership firm, registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. it is engaged in the business of manufacturing various kinds of filters and filtration system used for industrial purposes. it is stated that the firm operates from ..... stated that these premises are in the possession of the petitioners prior to 1998. the third respondent to this writ petition is a company incorporated under the provisions of the indian companies act, 1956 and in the business as above, so also of pipe coating from a factory at midc, taloja, district thane and in the state of gujarat. 5. the ..... of tenancy prior to 1998. the certificate issued by the sales tax officer, sales tax notice, profession tax certificate, the certificate of registration issued under the bombay shops and establishment act, the certificate of importer-exporter code from ministry of commerce and some correspondence with the municipal corporation of greater bombay are relied upon, but these, to our mind, would .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 2016 (HC)

National Engineering College, Thoodhukudi District Vs. The Member Secr ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-01-2016

..... textile company was started with the name south india textiles and it sought for registration of the firm u/s.58[1] of the indian partnership act, 1932, and it was returned with a direction to delete the word india from the name of the firm as it is prohibited under the above ..... said act. a division bench of the andhra pradesh high court has taken note of section 58[3] of the indian partnership act, 1932, and held tht the said provision only says that a firm shall not contain any of ..... amounts to improper use within the meaning of section 3 of the emblems and names [prevention of improper use] act, 1950. 10. it is pertinent to point out at this juncture that the indian partnership firm act came into being in the year 1932 and after independence, the words under section 58[3] of the said ..... act have not been amended and therefore, the word india does not find place. insofar as the interpretation given to clause ..... filed by the respondent and would contend that in the year 2002, the respondent took a decision that no institution must bear the name national or indian in the name of the institution as these names are generally used for the government institutions and private institutions cannot be permitted to use the said .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 15 2016 (HC)

Rajalakshmi Vs. M/s. B.S. Sundaravadivel Mudalier and Sons and Others

Court : Chennai Madurai

Decided on : Mar-15-2016

..... business under the name and style of m/s.b.s.sundaravadivel mudaliar and sons and the firm has been duly registered under the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act. the plaintiffs are the owners of the properties and the same has been purchased by the plaintiffs under a registered sale deed dated 11.10.1969 from one renganatha konar .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 2016 (HC)

M/s. Amritlakshmi Machine Works and Another Vs. The Commissioner of Cu ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-29-2016

..... to the above general proposition of law. the above position is also clear by virtue of sections 4, 25 and 26 of the indian partnership act, 1932. however where the legislation, specifically provides otherwise, then a partnership firm should be accorded a status of a separate legal entity. this has been so held by the supreme court in state of punjab ..... section 112(a) of the act. 42. this reference is disposed of in above terms. no order as ..... and cognate expressions, shall have the same meaning as in the indian penal code. 42: - person shall include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. indian partnership act, 1932 chapter ii the nature of partnership section 4: - definition of partnership , partner , firm and firm name partnership is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits ..... managing partner under section 112(a) of the act in the above cases. 41. it is made clear that the issue posed before us was only in respect of a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act 1932. we have not in any manner dealt with partnership firm registered under the limited liability partnership act, 2008 and the liability of its partners under .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 2016 (HC)

N. Marappan and Another Vs. V.S.T. Sengottaian and Others

Court : Chennai

Decided on : May-11-2016

..... with the registrar of firms. though the defendants had taken a specific plea that the suit is not maintainable in view of the provision under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, the plaintiffs had not chosen to contend that the said firm was registered with the registrar of firms nor did they produce any document showing the registration of the firm ..... property of v.s.thangavel is wrong? (2) whether the suit is barred by res judicata? (3) whether the suit is barred by section 69(1) and (2) of the indian partnership act, 1932? (4) whether the suit as framed is not maintainable and whether the suit has not been properly valued ? whether the court fee paid is not correct? (5) whether the ..... . the firm marappan commercial complex is not a registered firm. hence the suit for declaration about the validity of the dissolution is not maintainable under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932. the suit has not been properly valued and proper court fee has not been paid. mutation of the names effected by the plaintiffs in respect of the plaintiffs was ..... has not been registered, the suit for declaration that the dissolution deed is not valid is not maintainable and the same is barred by section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932. instead of seeking declaration of their title in respect of the immovable property in which case they have to pay court fee on the ad valorem value of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 19 2016 (HC)

D. Balan Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

Decided on : Dec-19-2016

..... rights of the retiring partners in the firm were alone released and it can never be construed to be a conveyance deed. under the indian partnership act, 1932 all the properties are vested with the firm and they cannot be construed to be personal property of the individual partners. section 55.d(ii ..... the assistant executive engineer, madurai to value the properties for proper registration since the subject document is a release deed under section 55-c of the indian stamp act, 1899. when the order in appeal was passed, it was observed that the release deed has been executed under section 55.d(ii) for 3 ..... the value of three shares out of eight shares has to be calculated for the purpose of levying stamp duty under section 55-d of the indian stamp act, 1899. pursuant to the order of the first respondent, the second respondent had passed a revised order dated 31.07.2013 whereby the deficit ..... said document dated 23.10.2008 as a conveyance deed. aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had preferred an appeal under section 56(1) of the indian stamp act, 1899 before the first respondent. the said appeal was partly allowed on 10.05.2013 by setting aside the proceedings of the second respondent. however, ..... ) of the indian stamp act, 1899 deals with the release of right in favour of a partner, when such release is between the partners who are not family members. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 29 2016 (SC)

M/S Umesh Goel Vs. Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Group Housing Society ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jun-29-2016

..... judgment fakkir mohamed ibrahim kalifulla, j.an interesting but very important legal question arises for consideration in this appeal relating to interpretation of section 69(3) of the indian partnership act with reference to its applicability to arbitral proceedings. the facts are not in controversy which can be briefly stated as under: the respondent which is a cooperative group ..... respect of a right under a contract governed by the provisions of the indian partnership act, especially after the coming into force of the 1996 act and the proceedings governed by the special features contained in the said act. therefore, any interpretation made under the limitation act while construing section 14 to treat arbitral proceedings on par with civil proceedings ..... with the suit arise and not otherwise. under the partnership act, the expression court is not defined. in section 2(e) of the said act though it is stated that the expressions used but not defined, the definition in the indian contract act, 1872 can be applied, in the contract act also there is no specific definition set out for the ..... appellant as well the respondent and having bestowed our serious consideration to the respective submissions, the various decisions relied upon and the provisions contained in the partnership act, the interest act, civil procedure code and arbitration act, we are of the view that the submissions of mr. dhruv mehta, learned senior counsel for the appellant merit acceptance. to appreciate the respective .....

Tag this Judgment!


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