Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2008)3CALLT504(HC)
Sailendra Prasad Talukdar, J.1. Order No. 15 dated 11.5.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) at Amta, Howrah in Title Suit No. 118/05 is under challenge in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution.2. The backdrop of the present case may briefly be stated as follows:Opposite parties, as plaintiffs, filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and accounts before the learned Trial Court. In it, the plaintiffs claimed that the suit properties as described in the schedule of the plaint originally belonged to Asutosh Maji. On 14.5.2002, he transferred a portion of the property in favour of his son, Sri Brojogapal Maji being the defendant No. 3 by way of registered Deed of Gift being No. 799 for the year 2002, On 17.5.2002, said Asutosh Maji further transferred his remaining portion of the properties in favour of his two sons, namely, Benimadhav Maji and Shyamsundar Maji, the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 by way of two separate Deeds of Gift in the year 2002. By vi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. This appeal is directed against the order and judgment dated 30th August, 2013 delivered by the learned Principal District Judge Thane allowing application filed by the respondents under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellants have challenged the said orders on various grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. 2. Mr.Madon learned senior counsel for the appellants however raises an issue of maintainability of application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 itself filed by the respondents on the ground of the memorandum of understanding executed by and between the parties dated 6th August, 2008 being insufficiently stamped. Since both the learned senior counsel have addressed this court on this issue, without going into the other issues raised in the appeal memo and since decision on this issue will have bearing on the disposal of the appeal itself, I will deal with this issue raised by the appellants. Some of the relevant fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC877; 1998(2)ALLMR(SC)57; JT1997(10)SC174; 1997(7)SCALE640; (1998)2SCC171; [1997]Supp6SCR543
K. Venkataswami, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave has arisen under the following circumstances :-'3. The appellants are the partners of a suit firm called 'M/s. Paramount Builders'. The partnership was entered into on 29.11.1979 with the following individuals as partners :S. No. Name of Partners Share 1. Shri Sharad Vasant Kotak 15% 2. Shri Dilip Vasant Kotak 15% 3. Shri Anil Dhirendra Kotak 15% 4. Smt. Hemkuver Vasant Kotak 15% 5. Smt. Lilavati Dhirendra Kotak 15% 6. Shri Mohanlal Hinji Chawda 12 1/2% 7. Shri Ramniklal Mohanlal Chawda 12 1/2%4. The said partnership firm was registered on 15.12.1980 under Registration No. 158675 with the Registrar of Firms. On 6.5.1986, Shri Mohanlal Hinji Chawda, a partner of the firm (Sr. No. 6 above) died and in his place, his widow Smt. Jijiben Mohanlal Chawda was admitted as a partner in the firm. After the admission of the said Smt. Jijiben Mohanlal Chawda, another deed of partnership was made consisting of the old six partners ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1997)117PLR357
Harphul Singh Brar, J.1. This is a Regular First Appeal against the judgment dated 12.6.1978 passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Ludhiana vide which the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with costs. The plaintiff had brought a suit for cancellation of sale-deed dated 3.3.1972 executed by defendants No.1 to 8 in favour of defendant No.9 in respect of the land measuring 4 kanals 4 marlas comprised in Khewat No.134 and Khalauni No.142 Rect. No. 34, Killa Nos. 3/1, Rect. No.32. Killas No. 8/2, 13/1 vide Farad Jamabandi for the year 1968-69 situated in Village Sherpur Kalan, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. The possession of the land was also demanded in the suit. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff was a registered partnership firm and Tulsi Dass Jaitwani was its registered partner. He was thus competent to sue. The plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 8 were joint owners in possession of 40 kanals 15 marlas of land comprised in Khewat No. 134, Khatauni No.1 42, Rect. No. 132 Killa N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1982)1ITD564(Delhi)
1. The assessee in appeal is V.S. Madhusudan Dayal & Co. of Delhi. The year of assessment involved is 1975-76.2. Admittedly, the assessee-firm came into existence in June 1971 with three partners, namely, Shri Madhusudan Dayal, Shri Varinder Singh and Shri Narinder Singh. By the time the impugned order in the present case under Section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was passed by the ITO for the year under consideration, the assessee-firm had already been granted registration for the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1972-73 and continuation of registration for the accounting period relevant to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75.The ITO on application made by the assessee-firm for continuation of registration under Section 184(7) for the year under consideration noticed that the said application was in the prescribed form No. 12 requesting for continuation of registration and that application was in order and in time. He, however, disallowed c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1991)98CTR(Ker)12; [1992]195ITR716(Ker)
K.A. Nayar, J.1. These income-tax reference cases arise out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I. T. A. Nos. 68 to 74/Cochin of 1982. We are concerned with the assessment years 1971-72 to 1976-77. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business as a transporting contractor. The firm was originally constituted by a deed dated March 28, 1966, with Sri Paul Mathew and Abraham Paul Mathew as partners. The firm was duly registered. Thereafter, it was reconstituted under a deed dated July 1, 1970, adding three more partners, viz., three other sons of Shri Paul Mathew. The new partners were Babu Paul Mathew, George Paul Mathew and Kuruvila Paul Mathew. On behalf of the firm, an application in Form No. 11A accompanied by a certified copy of the deed dated July 1, 1970, was submitted on March 31, 1971, and the Income-tax Officer granted registration to the firm for the assessment year 1971-72. The benefit of continuation of registration was granted for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR2003All254
ORDERSunil Ambwani, J. 1. Heard Sri R. N. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri A. K. Goel for petitioner, and Sri Ravi Kant for respondent No. 2, Standing Counsel represents respondent No. 1. 2. Petitioner has challenged orders dated 8-8-2002 passed by Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Allahabad rejecting petitioner's representation; and the registration of respondent No. 2 firm dated 12-10-2001 on the basis of declaration in Form-VII dated 3-10-2001 and has prayed for a direction to Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and Chits, Allahabad not to give effect to the impugned registration dated 12-10-2001. 3. The facts giving rise to this case are that M/s. Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, Village and Post/Sahson, Allahabad-respondent No. 2 was reconstituted by partnership deed executed on 4-4-1998 between 16 partners, in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Clauses 5, 22, 24, 25 and 26 of the Partnership deed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (1994)48ITD210(Chd.)
1. Penalty of Rs. 60,000 stood imposed upon the respondent-assessee by the Deputy Commissioner of income-tax, Range-I, Ludhiana, under Section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in terms of default for failure to comply with the provisions of Section 269SS. The assessment year involved is 1989-90. The ld. first appellate authority having deleted the same, the revenue is aggrieved, hence this appeal and I have heard the ld. authorised representatives of the parties at length.2. Feed back of facts is that the respondent, the revenue alleges, had accepted a loan of Rs. 60,000 in cash from one Kulwant Rai & Sons, Ludhiana. This fact having come to the notice of the revenue, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was served with a show-cause notice under Section 271D to which the assessee replied that Kulwant Rai and Sons is a Hindu undivided family and the loan was given to the respondent assessee-firm by the said HUF through Shri Madan Lal.Sh. Madan Lal, the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1981)20CTR(Bom)215; [1982]136ITR288(Bom); [1981]6TAXMAN169(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The question which has been referred to this court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is as follow :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, and on the correct interpretation of the partnership deed dated March 17, 1961, the Tribunal was right in refusing registration to the assessee-firm ?'2. One Gokaldas Mulchand and his son, Harkisondas Gokaldas, were partners of the assessee-firm. With effect from November 1, 1959, another son of Gokaldas, namely, Anilkant gokaldas, was taken as a partner of the assessee-firm. On the clauses of the partnership deed provided that on the death of any of to the partners 'the said partnership shall not and shall not be deemed to have been dissolved as from the date of death of the said partners' and shall be deemed to continue as before taking the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased partners as partners in his place.3. Harkisondas Gokaldas, a partner of the firm,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1966]61ITR540(Guj)
Shelat, C.J.1. Between November 14, 1957, and March 27, 1960, one Jayantilal Thacker and Pravinchandra Thacker carried on business in the firm name and style of Thacker & Company. The business of the firm was in mill-gin stores and spare parts. On March 27, 1960, Pravinchandra Thacker retired from the said business. On March 28, 1960, Jayantilal entered into an agreement with his brother, Kantilal, to carry on the same business in partnership in the name and style of Thacker & Company, and the two brothers agreed to admit their minor brother, Dilipkumar, to the benefits of that partnership. On August 1, 1960, Jayantilal, Kantilal and the said minor, Dilipkumar, through his guardian, Lalji Thacker, entered into an agreement acknowledging thereby that a partition of the said former business of Thacker & Company had taken place on March 26, 1960, and that the amount standing in the account of Jayantilal in that business was distributed in three accounts, namely, Jayantilal Rs. 11,919, Kan...
Tag this Judgment!