Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: registration of firms partnership Page 1 of about 10,437 results (0.115 seconds)

Dec 05 2014 (HC)

Khare and Tarkunde Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. The State of Mah ...

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

..... certificate. clause no.(xi) with which we are concerned in the present petition provides for scanned from original copy of registration of firm, partnership deed and power of attorney, notarized joint venture, if applicable in case of a firm tendering for work. clause no.(xii) provides for the scanned from original copy of statements showing the similar type of bridge ..... in annexure i sworn before executive magistrate/notary. x) scanned from original copy of original professional tax registration/ clearance certificate. xi) scanned from original copy of registration of firm, partnership deed and power of attorney, notarized joint venture if applicable in case of a firm tendering for work. xii) scanned from original copy of statements showing the similar type of bridge ..... could have submitted the tender. undisputedly in case of an individual or in case of the incorporated company, there could be no question of original copy of the registration of the firm. apart from that clause (xi) which has been heavily pressed into service by the learned government pleader and mr. thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the ..... and mr. thakur, learned counsel for the successful bidder, vehemently opposed the petition. mrs. dangre submits that the contention regarding the submission of scanned copy of the registration of firm from original is an essential condition inasmuch as it is found that various companies which are not in existence participate in the tender process. it is submitted that .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 05 2006 (HC)

Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramlal Alias Ramu and ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : 2007ACJ1649; [2006(111)FLR880]

..... on behalf of respondent no. 3, who claimed himself as partner of m/s. golden gas service. no documentary evidence such as registration of firm, partnership deed is filed to demonstrate that shri paramjit singh was partners of the said firm. the document ex. d-1-a, which is a photo-copy of payment of commission is not sufficient to hold that the respondent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 15 1961 (HC)

In Re: Parekh Wadilal Jiwanbhai

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : [1961]42ITR266(Bom)

..... been signed by all the three brothers. in the assessment year 1951-52, the aforesaid three partners applied to the income-tax officer for registration of the firm under the act. along with this application, the aforesaid deed of partnership dated march 19, 1950, was produced. by his order dated march 20, 1956, made under section 26a of the act, the income-tax ..... by the earlier tribunal. now, in the instant case it was incumbent on the income-tax officer to duly scrutinise the partnership deed and see whether the requirements of section 26a, sub-section (1) had been satisfied before granting registration of the firm. as we have already stated on the scrutiny of the deed, the requirements do not appear to have been fulfilled ..... the parties before us, it would be convenient to set out section 26a. '26a. procedure in registration of firms. - (1) application may be made to the income-tax officer on behalf of any firm, constituted under an instrument of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners, for registration for the purposes of this act and of any other enactment for the time being enforce ..... assistance to the assessee. 10. in our judgment, therefore, the aforesaid deed of partnership dated march 19, 1950 fails to satisfy the requirements of sub-section (1) of section 26a of the income-tax act. the income-tax officer, therefore was justified in refusing to renew the registration of the firm. 11. it is next to be seen whether the fact that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 1974 (HC)

Rajasthan Trading Co. Vs. the Registrar of Firms and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1975AP232

..... state government to make rules prescribing any time-limit for the submission of notice or intimation under section 63(1). in the circumstances, rule 4 (2) of the andhra pradesh partnership (registration of firms) rules, 1957 is ultra vires of the powers of the state government under section 71(2) of the act. the said rule is, therefore, struck down, and the ..... in which such entries are to be amended or notes made therein.' sub-rule (2) of rule 4 of andhra pradesh partnership (registration of firms) rules, 1957, framed under section 71 of the act reads:-- 'every statement, intimation or notice relating to a firm, under sections 60, 61, 62, 63(1) or 63(2) of the act, shall be sent or given to ..... constitution is as to the validity of rule 4 (2) of the andhra pradesh partnership (registration of firms) rules, 1957. 2. the aforesaid question arises in the following circumstances: the petitioner is a partnership firm named m/s rajasthan trading company, osmanganj hyderabad, registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. the firm was registered on 8th october, 1968 subsequently, there were alterations in the constitution of ..... of the said change as required under sub-rule (2) of rule 4 of the andhra pradesh partnership rules. the petitioner alleges that the petitioner-firm underwent number of changes in its constitution after the first registration, that he has been intimating the registrar of firms about the said changes and that at no time an objection was taken that the change should .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 1983 (HC)

O. Balanarayanan and ors. Vs. the Registrar of Firms, Trivandrum and a ...

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1984Ker20

..... rules prescribing any time-limit for the submission of notice or intimation under section 63(1). it was held that in the circumstances, rule 4 (21 of the andhra pradesh partnership (registration of firms) rules. 1957 is ultra vires of the powers of the state government under section 71(2) of the act. the said rule was therefore struck down. from the above ..... only defect noticed is that the notice was not filed within 15 days from the date of occurrence of the event as contemplated under rule 4 (2) of the kerala partnership (registration of firms) rules, 1959, hereinafter called the rules.2. in this o. p., the petitioners invoke the exercise of extraordinary powers of this court under article 226 of the constitution of ..... , 1957, the only difference is that these rules were framed by the state of andhra pradesh. rule 4 (2) of the kerala partnership (registration of firms) rules, 1959 and rule 4 (2) of the andhra pradesh partnership (registration of firms) rules, 1957 are identical and as a matter of fact rule 4 (2) of the rules is a verbatim reproduction of rule 4 (2) of the ..... andhra pradesh partnership (registration of firms) rules, 1957. in rajasthan trading company's case, it was observed (at p. 233) :--'registration is indubitably in the interest of the trading public as well as the partners. a partner who is newly introduced into the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 1999 (HC)

Salem Chit Funds and Financiers Association Represented by Its Secreta ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1999(1)CTC373; (1999)IIMLJ46

..... above, i hold that the impugned government order 747 commercial taxes and religious endowment department dated 27.12.1990 inserting the same as rule 3-a to the tamil nadu partnership(registration of firms) rules was notified within the rule making powers of the state government, accordingly i reject the contra argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. net result ..... out the provisions contained in chapter vii of the act. further, as per sub-clause (3) of section 71 the government have notified their intention to amend the tamil nadu partnership(registration of firms) rules, 1932 and the same was notified in g.o.ms.no.13 commercial taxes and religious endowment department, dated 6.1.1990. by the said notification the government ..... the respondent relating to g.o.ms.747 commercial taxes and religious endowment department dated 2.12.1990 inserting the same as rule 3-a of to the tamil nadu partnership (registration of firms) rules and quash the same. 2. the case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: the members of the association consists of registered ..... : ' annexure notificationin exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and (2) of section 71 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (central act ix of 1932) the governor of tamil nadu hereby makes the following rules to the tamil nadu partnership (registration of firms) rules 1932. the same having been previously published as required by sub-section (3) of section 71 of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 07 2004 (HC)

K.C. Palanisamy, United Builders Consultants Vs. the Registrar of Firm ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR2004Mad375

..... having any dispute among themselves and the mistake was purely due to inadvertence. in fact, rule 7-a of the tamil nadu partnership (registration of firms) rules, 1951 empowers the respondent to make such enquiries or investigation, in case of any pending dispute. in the instant case, even though no dispute is pending and the respondent ..... incorporation of the company under a changed name they must take steps to change the name of the firm. under the said circumstances, the firm intended to register a change in the name of the partnership firm and necessary application was submitted before the registrar of firms. it is further contended that on 19.11.2002, the petitioner inadvertently filed form-v prescribed under the ..... necessary correction on the ground that the above mistake was bonafide. the partners of the firm have prayed for a rectification of register of firms by removing the entry relating to dissolution of the firm by invoking the powers conferred upon the registrar under section 64 of the partnership act, 1932. the respondent by the impugned communication dated 10.9.2003 has rejected the ..... partnership act, 1932 (hereinafter called as the 'act') instead of furnishing the particulars of the change of name of the firm, it was wrongly stated therein that 'the firm united builders consultants has been dissolved with effect from 31.03.2002'. on the above basis, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 2009 (HC)

Batchu Subba Lakshmi and ors. Vs. Sannidhi Srinivasulu and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2010(1)ALT483

..... respondent then agreed for amicable settlement. the matter was referred to lok adalat, nandyal, on 07.2.2004. respondents 1 and 2 agreeing to retire from the firm signed form v under andhra pradesh partnership (registration of firms) rules, 1951, and on the same day, the compromise decree was passed by the lok adalat. under the compromise, fourth respondent was permitted to continue business ..... not found. furthermore, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, his clients are not parties to the partnership dated 01.4.2003. when the firm is reconstituted with effect from 01.4.2003 duly dissolving partnership firm under deed dated 29.6.1997 and the said factum is found mentioned in form v as alleged by petitioners, it is ..... award of lok adalat or during pendency of suit before district court, nandyal, allegation of reconstitution of third respondent firm with petitioners and fourth respondent as new partners was not revealed. there is also no dispute nor it can be denied that partnership deed dated 01.4.2003 was executed by petitioners and fourth respondent on the stamp papers which had been ..... constituted on 29.6.1997 with respondents 1, 2 and 4 as its partners. the said partnership was reconstituted with effect from 01.4.2003 when respondents 1 and 2 withdrew from the firm and petitioners were taken as partners with fourth respondent as managing partner. the firm obtained lease of a vacant site situated at street no. 21, on a monthly rent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 2001 (HC)

Suvarna Cements Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2002(1)ALD330; 2001(6)ALT728

..... 748. a division bench of this court in m/s. rajasthan trading company case (supra) while holding that rule 4(2) of a.p. partnership (registration of firms) rules, 1957 which prescribed a time limit of 15 days for notice or intimation, as ultra-vires the power of the state government under section ..... purpose of the legislation, namely, to have the names of the persons entered in the register of firms. we are, therefore, of the opinion that rule 4(2) of the andhra pradesh partnership rules is beyond the rule-making power of the state government.' 12. in the premise of the ..... , india carbon limited v. state of assam, : air1997sc3054 and a judgment of the division bench of this court in rajasthan trading co. v. registrar of firms and another, : air1975ap232 .7. the learned advocate-general, on the other hand, would contend that framingof the impugned rule 64-a is very much within the ..... notice should, however, be given within a reasonable time. the section, which is designed to give relief to the partners of the firm as well as the ..... 71(2) of the partnership act, 1932, held-'............the section itself does not prescribeany limitation as to the period within which notice should be filed. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 06 1976 (HC)

G. S. Dugal and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay C ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : [1978]111ITR757(Bom)

..... the madras high court in a. asha & co.'s case : [1973]87itr57(mad) , that in parekh wadilal jivanbhai's case : [1967]63itr485(sc) , registration was granted to the firm relying upon the provision of section 13 of the partnership act does not appear to be borne out. 35. thus, in our opinion, the tribunal was right in taking the view that the assessee ..... clear from this decision of the supreme court that if upon a fair reading of the material on record, a firm as such has purported to become a partner in a partnership firm, then the partnership firm will not be entitled to registration under section 26a of the act, because of a firm is not a 'person' and as such is not entitled to enter into a ..... practically similar to those in chhotalal devchand's case : [1958]34itr351(bom) . the partnership deed or the instrument of partnership of the larger firm and separate deeds of partnership existed in respect of the constituent firms. when such was the position, the court took the view that the firm was entitled to registration under section 26a of the act. such a view undoubtedly is taken by the ..... by name s. lakhinder singh. he submitted that in law a firm cannot become a partner in a partnership firm and if the instrument of partnership discloses that the firm has become a partner, then such a partnership will not be entitled to registration. he also submitted that even if the four partners of the firm of messrs. bishan singh jaswant singh are treated as partners of the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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