Court : Mumbai
Oral Order: 1. This notice has been taken out under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 22 of the CPC. Defendant Nos.4, 5 and 6 have opposed the notice. 2. The plaintiff has obtained the decree in the above summary suit which is sought to be executed. The decree has been obtained from the Court in Thane. The plaintiff has got the decree transferred to this Court for execution under Section 39 of the CPC. Section 39 runs thus: 39. Court by which decree may be executed.- (1) The Court which passed a decree may, on the application of the decree-holder, send it for execution to another Court. (a) if the person against whom the decree is passed actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such other Court, or (b) if such person has not property within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court which passed the decree sufficient to satisfy such decree and has property within the local limits of the ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(4)MPHT339; 2008(1)MPLJ278
Abhay M. Naik, J.1. Short facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that the plaintiff/appellant instituted a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the defendant/respondent, mainly, with the allegation that the defendant/respondent is a tenant in a non-residential premises belonging to the plaintiff/appellant on a monthly rent @ Rs. 190/- under an oral tenancy. Plaintiff/appellant was earlier engaged in the business of animal feed which has been handed over by him to his two major sons. Sons of the plaintiff/appellant closed the business of animal feed and started their business of ready-made garments in the premises, earlier occupied for the business of animal feed. Besides it, a small godown has been got vacated from a tenant, namely, Mohan Singh, which is being used by the plaintiffs sons for storing their stock of ready-made garments. It has been pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff/appellant is carrying on the business of money-lending. However, he ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1986]161ITR568(Guj)
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The assessee is a partnership firm. It was registered under section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), prior to the assessment year in question. In the assessment year 1971-72, it made a declaration in Form No. 12 for renewal of registration. That declaration was received on January 21, 1972. Since it was not made within the prescribed time, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice to show cause why the firm did not make the declaration within the prescribed time. The authorised representative of the assessee by his written explanation dated March 25, 1974, stated that the declaration was submitted on June 30, 1971, but he was not in a position to produce supporting evidence in the form of an acknowledgement of having submitted the declaration on that date. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, did not accept the explanation and refused to entertain the declaration belatedly made. He, therefore, assessed the firm as an unregistered firm. He als...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(4)MPHT514; 2008(1)MPLJ189
ORDERAbhay M. Naik, J.1. Short facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioners' father was a money-lender of Shahdol district for more than 30 years. After his death, petitioner continued with the business of money lending. He obtained licence for money lending by getting himself registered under the provisions of Money Lenders Act, 1934. Licence was issued in favour of the petitioner on 17-3-1998 for a period of two years by Tehsildar, Tehsil Kotma, District Shahdol as revealed in Annexure P-2. It was extended from time to time, lastly on 29-3-2006 for a period from 30-10-2004 to 29-10-2006 as revealed on the back side of Annexure P-2. Last extension/renewal was granted by the Sub Divisional Officer, District Anuppur. It is pertinent to mention here that on formation of District Anuppur, Tehsil Kotma was made a part of it.2. Sub Divisional Officer, Kotma, issued a notice dated 20-11-2006 (Annexure P-3) to the petitioner requiring him to provide certain informat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1970]77ITR76(P& H)
Mehar Singh, C.J. 1. This will dispose of Income-tax References Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of 1964, Kishore Chand-Ramji Das of Ludhiana v. Commissioner of Income-tax.2. The assessee-firm was a partnership constituted under the partnership deed of December 3, 1947, effective and operative from October 25, 1947, in the preamble of which the description of the partners given was '(1) Kishore Chand, (2) Ramji Das, (3) Dayal Chand, (4) Roshan Lal, (5) Mohinder Paul, Harish Chander and Romesh Chander, minor sons of Balbir Chand, through Kishore Chand, their uncle, (6) Surrender Kumar, minor son of Balbir, Chand, through Kaushalya Devi, his mother, and (7) Kaushalya Devi, wife of Balbir Chand.' So there were seven partners. The first four and the seventh partners were majors whereas the fifth partner consisted of three brothers, namely, Mohinder Paul, Harish Chander and Romesh Chander, minors, and the sixth partner, another minor. Surrender Kumar. The deed stated the shares of the partners as below :(1)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1942]10ITR219(All)
.This is a reference under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and was made at the instance of Messrs. Mohan Lal Shyam Lal of Benaras. The assessment year is 1938-39. It has been conceded in the course of argument that the Income-tax Act of 1922 before the amendment by the Act of 1939 will govern the present reference.There was a man by the name of Lala Shyam Lal whose fathers name was Mohan Lal. Shyam Lal had two wives. One was Mst. Muni and from this union there were two sons, Kanhiaya Lal and Kishen Das. The second wife was Mst. Shyam Kumari and from this union there were two sons, Basant Lal and Gobind Prasad. His business, consisted of Benares cloth, gold and silver thread and money-lending. The assessee Messrs. Mohan Lal and Shyam Lal were always assessed as an 'association of individuals'. An attempt was made in the year 1934-35 for the assessment being made as an unregistered firm, but the application was withdrawn and in that assessment year also Messrs. Mohan L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(5)ALD162
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri V.S.R.Murthy, the Counsel representing the appellant.2. The only substantial question of law argued in elaboration by the learned Counsel representing the appellant is as hereunder:Whether the suit is maintainable in view of the bar imposed by Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932? 3. The unsuccessful defendant in both the Courts below preferred the present second appeal. The respondent herein - the plaintiff Sri Gopalakrishna Rice Mill, Gudur, represented by its Managing Partner filed the suit O.S. No. 354/86 on the file of District Munsiff, Gudur, praying for the relief of permanent injunction.4. On the respective pleadings of the parties, the Court of first instance settled the issues, recorded the evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1, marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 and also Exs.B.1 to Ex.B.4 and ultimately decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred appeal A.S. No. 6/93 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Gudur, and the appellate Court a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1993]201ITR875(All)
R.K. Gulati, J. 1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are not satisfied that the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal gives rise to any statable question of law. The order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is concluded by findings of fact. The question for consideration before the Tribunal was whether the Income-tax Officer rightly refused registration to the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1983-84 on the finding that no genuine firm had come into existence. The registration was refused on two grounds, namely, (i) that two of the lady partners had not contributed any capital, and (ii) that these partners were ignorant of the affairs of the firms. On appeal, the order of the Income-tax Officer did not find favour with the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who held that there was no legal requirement that every partner of a firm should contribute capital and merely because some partners were ignorant of certain affairs of the firm, was no ground to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (1984)7ITD435(Ahd.)
1. In this case, the Commissioner in exercise of his powers cancelled the order of the ITO granting registration of the firm with a direction to enquire into the genuineness and validity of the firm and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. During the accounting period Samvat Year 2034, i.e., 12-11-1977 to 30-8-1978, a minor, Shri Gopalbhai Shah, attained majority on 9-8-1978 and a new partnership deed was executed on 14-8-1978 admitting the said Shri Gopalbhai to partnership. This partnership was given effect from 12-11-1977. The Commissioner took the view that a valid partnership deed under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, could not be said to have been in existence from 12-11-1977 onwards and, hence, no registration could have been granted. He has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R.C.Mitter & Sons v. CIT [1959] 36 ITR 194 which, according to him, covers the cases where a partnership had been brought into existence by an oral agreement between t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1986]17ITD735(NULL)
ORDERPer Shri Prakash Narain, Accountant member - The common contention in all these appeals is that the AAC had erred in cancelling the orders of the ITO cancelling the registration of the firm earlier granted to it.2. The assessee, which is a firm, is constituted under a partnership deed dated 19-1-1973. It consists of six partners, namely, Haji Jalaluddin, Ziauddin, Salahuddin, Alauddin, Mohd. Ansari and Km. Fatima Khatoon. Besides tow minors, namely, Abu Bakar and Imtiaz Ahmad had been admitted with the mutual consent of the partners to the benefits of the partnership under section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Clause (3) of this partnership deed is relevant which is reproduced below :'That the partners shall share the profits and losses arising out of the partnership business in the ratios mentioned below :1. Haji Jalaluddin 0.15 paise in a rupee 2. Ziauddin 0.10 paise in a rupee 3. Salahuddin 0.15 paise in a rupee 4. Alauddin 0.10 paise in a rupee 5. Mohd. Ansari 0.15 p...
Tag this Judgment!