Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(2)BomCR657; (2001)2BOMLR145; (2001)1CompLJ415(Bom)
ORDERDr. D, Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The present company petition came to be admitted by a Judgment delivered on 7th March. 2000. An appeal was preferred by the respondent Company against the order of admission which came to be heard anddisposed of by an order of the Division Bench dated 5.6.2000. Before the Division Bench, it was argued on behalf of the respondent Company that the maintainability of the petition for winding up was sought to be contested on the ground that the winding up in the present case was sought in respect of the affairs of a registered partnership, something which according to the petitioner was not permissible under the provisions of Part X of the Companies Act, 1956. The maintainability of the petition had not been challenged at that stage before the learned single Judge and having regard to the question of law, which was pleaded, the Division Bench while allowing the appeal directed that the petition be heard afresh on all points including the point which was rai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
S. B. Mhase, President [1] Heard Adv. Anand Kulkarni on behalf of the Appellant/Opponent No.2. [2] This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 25/5/2012 passed by the District Forum, Solapur in Consumer Complaint No.27 of 2011. By this order the complaint was partly allowed by the District Forum and the Appellant/Opponent No.2 alongwith Respondent No.2/Opponent No.3 and the Respondent No.3/Opponent No.1 are directed to execute registered sale deed as per agreement to sale dated 5/6/2008. It is further directed that normally the expenses should be borne by the Respondent No.1/Complainant but the conveyance has not been executed since the year 2008 by the Appellant and the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 and, therefore, expenses required for registration of such documents have increased thrice and, therefore, the Appellant and the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 are directed to bear the 50% expenses. For mental agony suffered by the Respondent No.1/Complainant there is a direction to pay Rs.30,000/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. This order shall govern the application filed by the applicant under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 whereby the applicant has sought to enforce an arbitral agreement and prays for appointment of an Arbitrator. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that an agreement was entered into with the S.E.C.L./ Non-applicants on 05.09.1994 for construction of DAV School at Kusmunda. Acceptance of tender was communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 06.08.1994 and the value of the contract was Rs. 76,06,147.99 (Rupees Seventy Six Lakhs Six Thousand One Hundred Forty Seven and Ninety Nine Paisa Only). Under the terms of the agreement, it is further submitted that apart from the construction of DAV School, the ancillary work such as electrification, water supply and sanitation work were also to be executed by the applicant and the period of completion of job was 12 months including rainy season. It is further contended that as per the terms of the ag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1975]98ITR306(MP)
Pandey, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, has, under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, referred to this court for its opinion the following question of law '' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the firm of M/s. Chimanlal Umaji and Sons constituted under an instrument of partnership dated 29th September, 1954, could be denied registration on the ground that the instrument of partnership did not specify the individual shares of the partners as required by Section 26A of the Act '2. The material facts, as appearing from the statement of the case, are these. The assessment year is 1958-59, the corresponding previous year being the one which ended on 23rd October, 1957. The assessee is a firm consisting of three partners, namely, Chimanlal, Mangalchand and Hukumchand and one minor, Gulabchand, has been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The firm was constituted by a deed of partnership dated 29th Septemb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC2160; [1996]220ITR232(SC); 1996(4)SCALE501; [1996]Supp2SCR461
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The question in these appeals is: whether an erstwhile partner is liable to pay the tax arrears due from the partnership firm pertaining to the period when he was a partner. The Madras High Court has had held that he is not. The Revenue is disputing the correctness of that holding.2. The respondent-assessee was a partner in the firm, Sannanna Chettiar and Sons. He retired therefrom on April 19, 1963. On his retirement, the firm was continued by taking in two new partners. The said firm too was dissolved with effect from April 12, 1972. The assessments for the Assessment Years 1962-63 and 1963-64 were completed on March 25, 1967 and March 29, 1968. (For the two accounting years relevant to the said assessment years, accounts were duly made up by the partners and the share of profits due to the respondent paid to him before his retirement.) On February 23, 1972, the Income Tax Officer sent a communication to the respondent that in respect of the arrears of ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1967MP30
Pandey, J. 1. At the instance of the assesses, the Appellate Tribunal. Bombay has, under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act,1922, referred to this Court for its opinion the following question of few :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the firm of M/s. Chimanlal Umaji and Sons constituted under an instrument of partnership dated 29-9-1964 could be denied registration on the ground that the instrument of partnership did not specify the individual shares of the partners as required by Section 26-A of the Act ?2. The material facts, as appearing from the statement of the case, are these. The assessment year is 1958-59, the corresponding previous year being the one which ended on 23rd October 1957. The assessee is a firm consisting of three partners, namely. Chiman lal, Mangalchand and Hukumchand and one minor, Gulabchand, has been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The firm was constituted by a deed of partnership dated 29th September 1954, the m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1991]188ITR631(MP)
K.M. Agarwal, J.1. By this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the 'Act'), the Revenue has applied to this court for requiring the Appellate Tribunal to state the case and to refer it for the opinion of this court on the following two proposed questions of law :'1. Whether the Tribunal has construed the partnership deed reasonably and properly by holding that since the partners had declared that the profits will be divided amongst the four partners in equal ratio, whether they are minors or majors, and the losses were to be borne by the two senior partners, it could be inferred that they have decided not to burden Shri Tarun Kumar with the share of loss in the firm even after he had become a partner on attaining majority ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that there was no change in the constitution of the firm and the assessee was entitled to continuation of registration of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1985)49CTR(Raj)348; [1986]157ITR734(Raj)
Bhatnagar, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, at the instance of the assessee, M/s. Raj Construction Co., Mount Abu, has made this reference to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court on the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of the partnership deed dated January 27, 1966, and application in Form No. 11, the Tribunal was correct in law in refusing grant of registration under Section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the assessee-firm ?'2. The assessee is a firm styled as 'M/s. Raj Construction Co.', Mount Abu. The assessment year in question is 1967-68. The assessee-firm wasconstituted of three partners, viz., Munshilal, Laxmi Chand and Babu Bhai, under a partnership deed to this effect executed on January 27, 1966. The firm filed an application in Form No. 11 for the aforesaid assessment year for registration under Section 184 of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
Reported in : (1983)5ITD330(Coch.)
1. IT Appeal Nos. 604 and 606 (Coch.) of 1982 are appeals by the revenue contesting the grant of relief in respect of certain additions made in determining the quantum of income to be assessed for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 respectively. (a) IT Appeal Nos. 605 and 607 (Coch.) of 1982 are also appeals by the revenue but contest the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) directing continuation of registration to the assessee-firm for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. (b) CO. No. 73 (Coch.) of 1982 (relating to the assessment year 1980-81) is filed by the assessee submitting that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in holding that the levy of interest under Sections 139 and 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), could not be contested. Similar is the plea in CO. No. 75 (Coch.) of 1982 which relates to the assessment year 1981-82. In CO. No. 74 (Coch.) of 1982, the assessee seeks for upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) directing continuat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1997]226ITR1(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the sum of Rs. 2,50,348 paid by the assessee to its retiring partners was an allowable expenditure under s. 37 of the IT Act, 1961 ?' 2. The matter relates to the asst. yr. 1975-76. The assessee which was assessed in the status of unregistered firm, was engaged in the business of manufacturing malt for brewery units. The assessee filed its return of income on 5th April, 1976, declaring a loss of income of Rs. 2,10,595. As the proposed variation in the returned loss turned out to be more than Rs. 1 lac, a draft order under s. 144B was served on the assessee on 30th March, 1978, to which the assessee filed its objections as regards the additions proposed. The assessee-firm had charged the P&L; a/c, an amou...
Tag this Judgment!