Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1984]147ITR581(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In the instant reference the following questions have been referred to us for answer :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of the instrument dated 6th June, 1964, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Hindu deity is a juristic person capable of entering into partnership and as such there was a valid partnership which was entitled to registration ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that it was the shebaits who have become the partners in the firm on behalf of the deities ' 2. In order to appreciate the questions it is necessary to state that the questions arise out of a reference made under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1965-66. The assessee is a firm consisting of seven partners which was constituted on the strength of a partnership deed executed on 6th of June, 1964. It had filed an application f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1977]106ITR1004(Cal)
Deb, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the question is as follows ;'Whether, on the facts aqd in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the terms of the deed of partnership dated April 26, 1959, the firm constituted thereunder was eligible for registration ?'2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1960-61, and it arises out of the registration proceedings under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee is a firm constituted under a deed of partnership dated April 28, 1959. The minor sons of a deceased partner, namely, Hiralal Chhajer, were admitted to the benefits of this partnership and they were given l/10th share of profits of the firm. The Income-tax Officer refused registration, for, according to him, the individual shares of those minors are not specified in this partnership deed. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, on the ground that in the absenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1937]5ITR182(Cal)
COSTELLO, J. - This matter arises out of an assessment which was made by the Income-tax authorities in respect of the year 1933-34 on the assessee Hossen Kasam Dada as an unregistered firm on the basis of the total income of Rs. 2,87,846 as against an annual income of Rs. 1,60,854 returned by the assessee. While the assessment proceedings were pending the assessee put in an application said to have been made under Section 2(14) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which application is dated the November 23, 1933 in which the assessee asked for the registration of his firm in accordance with certain particulars which were contained in an instrument of partnership dated October 22, 1933. It appears, however, that the assessee was at the time doubtful as to the validity of that particular partnership-deed and, accordingly, a fresh instrument of partnership was entered into which is dated the March 25, 1934, and then on the May 10, 1934, a fresh application was filed which is also said to h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
LORD PORTER: The appellants in this case, who were plaintiffs in the suit, sought to recover a sum of Rs. 65,756.3.0 from two sets of defendants. They originally sued (1) Bhola Nath and his son Brij Behari who were members of a joint Hindu family and (2) Madho Prasad and his sons Sheo Prasad, Shrosagar, Ramsagar and Gangasagar, who were also members of a joint Hindu family of which the first named was karta. In the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chaibassa, the plaintiffs obtained a decree for Rupees 61,070.7.6 against both sets of defendant and no question arises now as to the amount or the liability of the first set, though owing to the death of Bhola Nath the persons against whom the decree stands have undergone some change. So also in the case of the second set of defendants there has been a change of parties owing to the death of Madho Prasad, but it is admitted that the other four are in the same position as their father and under the same but no greater liability than he was. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI % + Judgment Reserved on: November 22, 2012 Judgment pronounced on: December 10, 2012 I.A.No.6779/2008 in CS(OS) No.1061/2008 M/S BHAGWAN DASS KHANNA JEWELLERS ..... Plaintiff Through Mr. Pravin Anand, Adv. with Mr. Shantanu Sahay and Ms. Jaya Negi, Advs. versus BHAGWAN DAS KHANNA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD & ORS ..... Defendants Through Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ashok Chhabra, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By this order, I propose to decide the pending interim application being I.A. No.6779/2008 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC. The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of as well as dilution of trademarks, delivery up, rendition of accounts of profits, damages etc.2. The case of the plaintiff is that M/s Bhagwan Dass Khanna Jewellers is a partnership firm registered in the year 1992. The said firm has been carrying on b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.1554 o9. 4-2012 K. Laxminarayana Reddy, Since died per L.R. K. Ranganadha Reddy Vardhi Reddy Dasrath Ram Reddy (died)and others HEAD NOTE: Counsel for petitioner : Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 9 : Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla Counsel for respondent No.3 : Sri D. Prakash Reddy,Senior Counsel for Sri P. Venka Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5 : Sri P. Venugopal Counsel for respondent No.7 : Sri Ch. Siva Reddy ?CASES REFERRED:1. AIR 196.S.C....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO W.P. No.12615 OF 201.06-06-2013 Yousuf and Company, rep. by its Partner Sri Mohd. Mehamood, Hyderabad....APPELLANT The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary,Secretariat, Hydbad.,and another....RESPONDENTS Senior Counsel for Petitioner:Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, appearing for Sri K.Chidambaram, Counsel. Counsel for Respondents:G.P. for Industries and Commerce and Additional Advocate General. HEAD NOTE: Cases referred 1 (1994) 3 SCC 56.Par2. AIR 198.SC 136.Para 22 an3. (1999) 5 SCC 59.4 (2012) 2 SCC 48.5 (2012) 4 SCC 46.6 AIR 196.SC 93.(1) 7 AIR 197.SC 180.8 (2010) 6 SCC 49.9 AIR 195.SC 32.at Para.7 10 AIR 199.SC 70.at Para.7 11(1998) 8 SCC 28.at Para.28 12 (2006) 2 SCC 74.13 (1976) 1 SCC 90.14 AIR 198.SC 23.15 (2004) 4 SCC 31.16 (2012) 4 SCC 65.17 (1848) 12 Q.B18. 1997) 8 SCC 52.19 (2011) 12 SCC 41.20 AIR 195.SC 73.21 AIR 195.SC 94.ORDER : This writ petition is filed to call for records pertaining to order dt.26.03.201...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:04. 03.2014 Pronounced on:31. 03.2014 + FAO (OS) 15/2013, C.M. APPL.367/2013, 731/2013 & 11066/2013 MRS. VIBHA MEHTA ..Appellant Through: Sh. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Aankhi Ghosh, Advocate. Versus M/S. HOTEL MARINA & ORS. ..Respondents Through: Sh. J.S. Kochar, Advocate, for Resp. No.2. Sh. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Sh. R.K. Choudhary and Sh. Akshay Sharma, Advocates, for Resp. No.8. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. This is an appeal against an order of a learned Single Judge dismissing an application of the appellant (the plaintiff) seeking the setting aside of a compromise decree. FAO(OS) 15/2013 Page 1 2. The plaintiff had sued the first respondent, M/s Hotel Marina (Marina), a partnership firm of which she and respondents 2-9 (the other defendants) were members. The suit claimed the dissolution of the firm, a decree of rendition of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 27.6.2013CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIANC.S.Nos.339 of 1999, 995 of 1999 and 551 of 2001andTr.C.S.Nos.2 and 3 of 2003A.Arunagiri.. Plaintiff in CS 339/1999M/s.Ramu & Co.,Represented by its Partner, B.Sudha,91, C.P.Ramasamy Road,Alwarpet, .. Plaintiff in CS 995/99 & 551/01 / Chennai-18. D3 in CS 339/99A.Thayumanaguru.. Plaintiff in Tr.CS 2/03G.Anbazhagan.. Plaintiff in Tr.CS 3/03 Vs.The Egmore Benefit Society Ltd.,No.13, Flowers Road, .. D1 in CS 339/99, 551/01,Chennai-600 084. Tr.CS 2&3/03 / D2 in CS 995/99N.M.R. Investments Pvt. Ltd.,Flat No.A1, Rams Apartments,No.3, 8th Street, Gopalapuram, .. D1 in CS 995/99 /D3 in CS 551/01 Chennai-600 086. & Tr.CS 2&3/2003Sri Raj & Co.,No.14, II Floor,Sunkurama Chetty Street, .. D2 in CS 339/99 & 551/01 &Chennai-1. D3 in CS 995/99 M/s.Ramu & Co.,91, C.P.Ramasamy Road, .. D3 in CS 339/99 / D2 in Tr.CS Alwarpet, Chennai-18. 2 & 3/03 & Plai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records culminating in the impugned order dated 10.05.2013 in proceedings Pa. Mu. No.32660/P1/2012 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal void abinitio without jurisdiction ultravires and direct the 3rd respondent to register the release deed No.133/2008 in Book in 1 by collecting the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 72 000/-) 1. The brief facts of the petitioner's case is as follows:- The properties comprised in T.S.Nos.73/4 and 73/1A, Natham Road, Dindigul were originally vested with M/s.I.Bahrudeen, I.Rafeeq and I.Abdul Salam. The aforesaid three persons constituted a partnership firm under the name and style of Shan Theatre through a partnership deed dated 07.03.1988. Subsequently, the petitioner and eight others were inducted into the said partnership firm as partners through a partnership deed dated 27.03.2003. As per the re...
Tag this Judgment!