Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(3)ALD674
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J. 1. Heard Ms. Arshia Khatoon representing Smt. Sesharajyam and Mr. M.V. Nagaraj representing Mr. Rajalingam, the Counsel representing both the parties in the CRP.2. The CRP is filed against an order dated 26-7-1999 made in IA No. 9 of 1999 in OS No. 504 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.3. The revision petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit filed an application under Order XXIII, Rule 1 C.PC to permit the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with a liberty to file a fresh suit. The Court below by an order dated 26-7-1999 had allowed the application in part granting permission to the petitioner to withdraw the suit, but refusing liberty to file a fresh suit. Therevision petitioner aggrieved by the said order had preferred the present CRP.4. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: The revision petitioner-petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 29,531.48 ps., and the registration certificate of the firm was not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1989AP55
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J. 1. The first petitioner is a partnership firm consisting of petitioners 2 to 5 as partners. They sought for registration of the firm under Section 58(1) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (Act LX of 1932) (for short 'the Act') with the name 'the South India Textiles' to do business at Secunderabad as distributors of Madras Coats Limited situated at Ambasamudram, Tamilnadu State. The application was returned with a direction to delete the word 'India' from the name of the firm stating that the word 'India' is prohibited under the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Emblems Act'). Subsequently they made a representation to the First respondent State Government on May, 2, 1979 seeking permission to use the name 'the South India Textiles' By the impugned order it was negatived. Assailing the legality thereof, the writ petition has been filed.2. The contention of the petitioner which merits acceptance is that ther...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1985)48CTR(AP)8; [1986]157ITR589(AP)
Y.V. Anjaneyulu, J.1. This reference arise under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The matter relates to the income-tax assessment year 1975-76. The assessee is a partnership firm constituted under a deed dated August 20, 1973. Prabhakar Gupta, a minor, was admitted to the benefits of this partnership. Apart from the minor, there are four other adult partners. All of them share profits equally. In the event of losses, the four adult partners agreed to share them equally. The assessee's previous year relevant to the assessment year 1975-76 was the financial year 1974-75. On October 31, 1974, Prabhakar Gupta attained majority. It appears, he exercised the option under section 30(5) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, to become a partner in the firm. On December 19, 1974, a fresh deed of partnership was executed among all the partners including the minor, Prabhakar Gupta, who attained majority. The assessee made an application for registration of the firm evidenced by the deed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1971]79ITR306(AP)
Gopal Rao Ekbote, J.1. This is a reference made to this court under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922), hereinafter called the ' Act ', and raises the following three questions :' (1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to renewal of registration for the assessment year 1961-62 ? (2) Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction under Section 33B of the Act to set aside the order granting registration in the facts and circumstances of the case ? (3) Whether the assessee was afforded a reasonable opportunity by the Commissioner to present his defence ' 2. The facts out of which these questions arise may briefly be mentioned.3. The assessee is a firm known as Messrs. Addepalli Nageswara Rao & Brothers, Palakole, which consists of three major partners and one minor ; Nageswara Rao and his two brothers, Kasiviswanadham and Mareswara Rao, are the major partners; and Kamaraju, son of Nageswara Rao, is a minor. The firm was cons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1967AP99; [1967]64ITR125(AP)
Ayyar, J.(1) The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, has referred the following question to this Court under S. 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (Act XI of 1922), for decision.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the application under section 26-A of the Income-tax Act was filed out of time.'(2) The relevant facts are correctly stated in the statement of the case drawn up by the Tribunal and are beyond dispute. The most important data for deciding the present case consists of various relevant facts and dates as follows:(1) 5-11-1954 - The firm of assessee namely Shri Jayalakshmi Rice and Oil Mill Contractors Co., Angalur was constituted i.e., came into existence. (2) 4-5-1955 - The date within which application should be filed by the assessee as an unregistered firm under Rule 2 (a) i.e., within six months of the constitution of the firm. (3) 14-10-1955 - The assessee filed the application before Income-tax Officer for registration of the partnership...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Indore
1. This civil revision has been preferred against the order dated 17.2.2011 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-I, Shajapur, in Civil Suit No. 3A/2004, dismissing thereby application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 2. Briefly stated relevant facts are that plaintiff No.1 has instituted a suit mainly with allegations that the plaintiff and defendant/revisionist constituted a partnership firm in the name and style M/s Genius Computers, Shajapur with equal shares in it i.e. 50% each. An agreement to this effect was duly executed between them on 4.9.1999. Plaintiff cooperated in running of the said partnership business. After 25.5.2003, defendant No.1 caused obstruction in the partnership business firm. Plaintiff, thereafter made a demand for accounts and further for half of his profits in the said partnership firm. Defendant No. 1 declined to make payment, hence the suit with following reliefs:- I) It may be declared that defendant No. 1 and plaintiff are partners in the business of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(3)ALT695
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. This Revision Petition has been filed by the third defendant in O.S. No. 90 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.2. The suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale executed by the third defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the third defendant filed I.A. No. 18 of 2007 under Order 8 Rule 9 and Section 151 of C.P.C. praying the Court to permit him to file additional written statement in the suit.3. In the said Application, the revision petitioner-third defendant contended that respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale said to have been executed by him. The first respondent was examined as PW-1. During the cross examination, it came to light that R-1 and R-2 are partners of partnership firm and their claim in the suit is as partners of a firm. The petitioner learnt that the firm of R-1 and R-2 is not registered and he was not aware about it previously, therefore, he ...
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 : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [2002]123TAXMAN673(AP)
S.R. Nayak, J.The Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-A, has referred the following question under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that firm Suleman Khan & Mahaboob Khan & Co., Tobacco Exporters, Guntur, was entitled to claim registration for the relevant assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 ?2. The background facts leading to the above reference be noticed first and they are as follows: The respondent-assessee-firm, Suleman Khan & Mahaboob Khan & Co., Tobacco Exporters, Guntur, is a partnership firm and the assessment years involved are 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78. According to the Commissioner, the assessee-firm consisted of 23 partners (20 adults + 3 minors) during each of the above three assessment years and that since the total number of partners exceeded 20, the Commissioner thought that the fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [2002]257ITR170(AP)
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. The Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-A, has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), at the instance of the revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that firm Suleman Khan & Mahaboob Khan & Co., Tobacco Exporters, Guntur, was entitled to claim registration for the relevant assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 ?2. The background facts leading to the above reference be noticed first and they are as follows : The respondent assessee-firm, Suleman Khan & Mahaboob Khan & Co., Tobacco Exporters, Guntur, is a partnership firm and the assessment years involved are 1975-76,1976-77 and 1977-78. According to the Commissioner, the assessee-firm consisted of 23 partners (20 adults + 3 minors) during each of the above three assessment years and that since the total number of partners exceeded 20, the Commissioner thought that the firm was not validly cons...
Tag this Judgment!