Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : III(2004)ACC810; AIR2005Raj124; RLW2004(4)Raj2074
A.C. Goyal, J.1. This first appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 26.9.1987 whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Kota, dismissed the civil suit No. 50/1983.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiffs filed a suit on 2nd April 1983, for recovery of Rs. 18,500/- with the averments that in compliance of the orders of the plaintiffs, M/s Bhatia Stones Company, Ramganjmandi, district kota, booked polished stones worth Rs. 990.81 with the defendant Railway, vide Railway Receipt No. 334787 on 7.4.1980. The delivery of the goods was to be given to the plaintiffs at Bombay, but the same were not delivered by the defendants. The plaintiffs informed the defendants vide letters dated 1.6.1980 and 17.7.1980 and thereafter served a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. on 25.8.1980 vide registered post, which was received but with no result. The plaintiffs prayed for decree of the suit amount inclusive of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. (3. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1938]6ITR336(All)
This is a statement of a case by the Commissioner of Income Tax, C.P. and U.P., under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The reference was made at the instance of Sardar Bahadur Dr. Sir Sundar Singh Majithia, C.I.E. who is the head of an undivided Hindu family consisting of himself and his three sons.The Commissioner states that 'the assessee enjoys large income from property, has deposits in banks and shares in companies, does money and grain-lending business and is interested in a sugar factory styled as the Saraiya Sugar Factory.' For several years Sir Sundar Singh was also a member of the Executive Council of the Punjab Government and drew a salary in that capacity. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1932-33 and the accounting year ended with the 30th September 1931. The members of his family are Jats of the Sher Gill tribe in the Amritsar district in the Punjab and they are, as we have already said, an undivided Hindu family. In previous years the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960AP67; [1959]36ITR453(AP)
Chandra Reddy, C.J. 1. The question referred to this Court by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench, is :'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in refusing registration on the ground that the profits were not distributed between the partners'.The reference relates to the assessment years 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54, the chargeable accounting periods being 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53. The facts leading up to the reference may be stated in a few words. The assessee is a firm running a hotel under the name and Style of 'Grand Hotel' in Abid Road, Hyderabad. It has been carrying on this business for the last several years. Originally, it was constituted under a deed of partnership which was registered before the Registrar of Assurances. It was assessed in the status of a 'Registered Firm' for 1949-50, 1950-51 for which the previous years were Fasli years 1357 and 1358.It appears that there was a change in the constitution of the firm on 29-8...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1947]15ITR51(All)
PATHAK, J. - This is a reference made under Section 66 (3) of the Indian Income-tax Act before its amendment in 1939 by the Commissioner of Income-tax. The question which has been referred to this Court for decision is as follows :-'Whether, in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the relevant rules framed by the Central Board of Revenue, the Income-tax Officer was legally competent to refuse the renewal of registration of the assessee firm for the assessment year 1939-40 when the firm had been duly registered under Section 26A of the Act and renewal of registration had been granted in previous years.'The material facts giving rise to this reference are very short and may be stated thus. Three brothers, Haji Mohammad Rafi, Haji Mohammad Shafi and Haji Mohammad Sami, are the assessees in this case. They carry on business in the printing and sale of religious books at Cawnpore and Calcutta. On the 16th of July, 1932, an instrument of partnership was executed by the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1961]41ITR235(All)
BHARGAVA, J. - This is a reference made under section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter called the Act) by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bombay, Allahabad Bench. The facts as given in the statement of the case are as follows :The assessee, Pt. Deo Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the assessee), was treated for the purpose of assessment as an individual until December 31, 1945. He was a four-annas partner in the firm, L. N. Gadodia & Co., the sole agent of the Kanpur Cotton Mills. This partnership firm was dissolved as its sole agency with Kanpur Cotton Mills terminated and from January 1, 1946, Sharma & Co. became the sole selling agent. For the accounting year ending with May 2, 1946, the assessee was assessed to an income of Rs. 84,135 made up from the following sources :Rs. 14,223Income from Kanpur Cotton Mills retail shop from November 4, 1945, to December 31, 1945.Rs. 24,233Income from Kanpur Cotton Mills retail shop from January 1, 1946, to June 2, 1946.Rs. 6,146Sha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (1987)(12)ECC202
1. This appeal has been filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, and is directed against the Order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras dated 24-3-1986 setting aside the Order of the original authority, namely, the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Madras, dated 27-9-1985. The respondent herein applied for inclusion of Shri Imtiaz Ahamed as a partner in their gold dealers firm having a licence No. 68/83. Shri Imtiaz Ahamed is a minor. The inclusion of the minor in the said partnership firm was not approved by the original authority on the ground that in terms of Section 27 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, the 'Act' for short, the applicant is required to agree to abide by the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and since the minor is only represented by a guardian and since the guardian has signed the Partnership Deed taking all the responsibilities on behalf of the minorson, the minor cannot give an undertaking to abide by the provisions of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1993]199ITR274(Raj)
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice dated March 28, 1981 (annexure '11') issued under Section 17(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of the assessment year 1972-73, for restraining the non-petitioner from taking further proceedings in pursuance thereof and for holding that the non-petitioner has no jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned notice. The facts of the case may be summarised thus.2. The petitioner along with his mother, Smt. Rukma Bai, constituted a partnership firm, Messrs. Gulab Das [agannath, in terms of the partnership deed dated November 14, 1966. It was duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The Income-tax Officer granted registration to the said firm under Section 185 of the Income-tax Act thereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The firm was regularly registered as a registered firm till the year 1977-78. The partners of the firm, Messrs. Gulab Das Jagannath, i.e....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Order:13. 12.2018 + C.R.P. No.19/2018 & C.M. Nos.4276-4277/2018 M/S. HINDUSTAN INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Mr. Shadman Siddiqui & Mr. Ayush Puri, Advocates. Versus M/S. R.S. WOODS INTERNATIONAL & ORS. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL C.M. No.4277/2018 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. C.R.P. No.19/2018 & C.M. No.4276/2018 (for stay) 1. The impugned order dated 09.10.2017 passed by the court of learned Additional District Judge-03, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (ADJ) in Civil Suit No.6137titled as M/s. R.S. Wood International vs. M/s. Bhayana Builders Hindustan Infrastructure JV Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. dismissing the application of the petitioners/defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is the subject-matter of challenge in this revision pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(3)ARBLR177(Bom); 2006(3)BomCR470
Parkar S.S., J.1. Heard both sides. This is an application filed for appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the disputes arising between the applicant and the non-applicants in the following circumstances:There was a partnership agreement for carrying on certain business in the name of 'Mudranand', entered into between the applicant and the non-applicants on 12-2-1988, which contained, inter alia, Clause 17 for referring the disputes to the arbitrators. Clause 17 of the said agreement reads as follows : '17. In the event of any dispute or difference of opinion in the matter of interpretation, execution or carrying out the objects and functions of the enterprise, arbitrators and the arbitrators appointed shall amongst themselves appoint an Umpire. The decision of the arbitrators would be binding on the parties to the dispute. In the event of any difference amongst them the decision of the Umpire would be final and binding upon all concerned.As there was a dispute between the parties, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(1)AWC878(SC); 2006(2)CTLJ269(SC); JT2007(4)SC564; (2007)1MLJ623(SC); 2006(12)SCALE232; 2006AIRSCW5898
B.P. Singh, J.1. In this appeal by special leave the plaintiffs are the appellants. Their suit against original defendant nos. 1 to 9 was decreed for the sum of Rs. 8,92,815.14 by the Third Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur in Civil Suit No. 52 of 1980. On appeal by original defendants 1 to 3, the High Court in First Appeal No. 35 of 1988 by its impugned judgment and order of April 10, 1992 allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit holding that in view of the provisions of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the suit was not maintainable, the plaintiff being an unregistered firm.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute and they will be briefly noticed. Plaintiff No. 1, Pursushottam, carried on business as whole- sale paper merchant in the name and style of 'Dinesh Paper Mart' as the sole proprietor of the concern. During this period he supplied goods to the defendant firm namely - Shivraj Fine Arts Litho Works, a firm registe...
Tag this Judgment!