Court : Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The unsuccessful plaintiff appeals against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge, (dated 31.10.2014) rejecting his plaint as barred by law on the ground of limitation and at the same time, holding that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction. The Court heard the counsel for parties finally, with their consent and also considered the documents and pleadings which were part of the suit records. 2. The suit averments were that the deceased plaintiff, along with Capt. H.S. Bajaj (Retd.) and Shri. N.K. Duggal, was carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Freezo Freezing Complex in terms of partnership deed dated 28.08.1979. The plaintiff and Capt. H.S. Bajaj, retired Army officers, had applied for allotment of an industrial plot at Dhoondahera under a scheme formulated by the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (fourth defendant HSIDC ?). By allotment letter dated 12.12.1979, HSIDC allotted the suit property (i.e. land bearing N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
S. Vimala, J. 1. When a Firm is succeeded by a Company, with no change either in the number of members or in the value of assets, with no dissolution of the Firm and no distribution of Assets, with change in legal status alone, whether there is a "transfer" as contemplated under Section 2(47) and Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act and whether the Assessee is liable to be taxed, are the issues canvassed in this case. 1.1 Under Part IX of the Companies Act, when a Partnership Firm is treated as a Limited Company, the properties of the erstwhile firm vests in the Limited Company. The question is whether such vesting stands covered by the expression 'transfer by way of distribution' under Section 45(4) of the Act? 1.2 Whether the expression "otherwise" occurring in section 45 of the Income Tax Act has to be read "ejusdem generis" with the expression "dissolution of a firm or body or association of persons" or it has to be read with the word "transfer of capital assets" by way of distribut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
Reported in : (1986)18ITD556(Coch.)
1. The appeal as well as cross-objection arise out of common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Calicut dated 19-2-1983 relating to the assessment year 1979-80. The appeal is preferred by the assessee, whereas the cross-objection is preferred by the revenue. The only grounds raised in the appeal are (i) whether the income earned by the joint receivers is assessable at all for the assessment year 1979-80, (II) whether proper machinery was provided in the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') to bring to tax the income earned on the post-dissolution period of a firm, more particularly between the date of dissolution and the date of winding up of the firm. In any view of the matter and (iii) whether the income earned by the receivers is correctly assessed in the status of an AOP.2. The facts are few and they may be stated as under. The relevant assessment year is 1979-80 for which the accounting year is from 23-5-1978 to 31-3-1979. The assessees in this case are the joint receivers a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2000KAR3222; 2000(5)KarLJ1
R. Gururajan, J.1. This appeal is filed by appellant aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed in Writ Petition Nos. 5516 and 5523 of 1998, dated 25-8-1999 on the following facts.2. Facts: Appellant (petitioner) is a Company engaged in export business of flowers. It has subscribed to two telephones bearing Nos. 3312372 and 3344920. The respondents disconnected the telephone No. 3312372 on the ground of non-settlement of bills by another Company by name M/s. Bangalore Pesticides Limited. In addition respondents have also disconnected other telephone bearing No. 3344920. Aggrieved by the disconnections of these two telephones petitioner filed writ petitions in this Court in W.P. Nos. 5516 and 5523 of 1998.3. Respondents had filed a detailed objection before the Single Judge.4. Learned Single Judge in the impugned order has dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of withholding the required information and on the ground of the petitioner and its sister concerns having a bad track of r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1986]60CompCas568(AP)
Kodandaramayya, J.1. Among numerous question of law, two interesting company law problems are raised in this civil appeal by Sri T. Veerabhadraiah, the learned counsel for the appellants : (1) Whether a conveyance is necessary to vest the property of a firm when the same was converted into a company (2) Similarly whether such conveyance is necessary to claim title by the company in respect of property acquired by the promoter before its incorporation 2. A considerable time and lengthy debate had taken place and, hence, we are impelled to state this in the forefront. Now, we shall state the facts. 3. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 36 of 1969 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Vijayawada, are the appellants in this appeal. The suit is laid for eviction of the defendants from the plaint schedule site after declaring the suit lease as duly terminated, removing the structures and deliver vacant possession of the same. The plaintiffs are grandsons of one Vali Subbarayudu and it is ave...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1995AP351; 1995(2)ALT32
1. The appellant, who is the plaintiff, filed O.S. No. 103 of 1982 on the file of Subordinate Court, Tirupathi, on 23-6-1982 for dissolution of partnership firm 'Pratap Talkies' (hereinafter referred to as 'the firm') and preliminary decree for rendition of accounts. The partnership, which was reconstituted with effect from 1-7-1976, is not 'at will'. Under Clause 17 of the deed, Ex. B1, the firm can be dissolved by common consent of all partners and no one person has a right by himself to dissolve the partnership. As per Clause 19, 'the partnership shall not be dissolved by reason of death, insolvency or retirement, expulsion of any of the partners and in case of death, retirement or insolvency or expulsion of any of the partners, the retiring partners or the person or the persons in whom the estate of such insolvent partner is vested, shall be entitled to or be liable for the share of capital and profits or share of loss of such partner, on the taking of accounts upto the date of dea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(5)ALD450; 2005(5)ALT325; 2005(2)CTLJ307(AP)
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.INTRODUCTION:The Government of Andhra Pradesh mooted water resource development projects for medium size projects in the State with a view to complete all the important projects in progress and also proposed to take up new projects. All these are to be completed within a period of five years to augment irrigation potential. The Government proposed to divide works into suitably large convenient packages so as to invite tenders for Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) on turn key system including investigation, design, preparation of construction of projects, cost estimates, construction, maintenance and operation for one irrigation system. The Government decided to take up the tender process in two stages. In the first stage it proposed to empanel a specified number of special class civil contractors by inviting offers for pre-qualification to tender for the projects. In the second stage it was proposed to again invite tenders inviting offers from empanelle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1972All1
Satish Chandra, J. 1. The Board of Revenue has referred the following two questions for decision bythis Court;'1. Whether the document is a dissolution of partnership-cum-three mortgages-cum-three releases as contended bythe executants. 2. Whether the document amounts to a dissolution of partnership-cum-three mortgages-cum-three conveyances for Rs. 48,000.00, Rs. 45,000.00 and Rupees 13,000,00 respectively chargeable with the aggregate duties of three conveyances under Article 23 of Schedule 1-B the U.P. Stamp Amendment Act 1958 read with Section 6 thereof.' 2. The document in question is dated 15th September 1960. It states that the four executants carried on business in partnership. The partnership has been dissolved with effect from 15th September 1960. The third party (Narendra Bahadur Singh) was given all the stocks, assets, and liabilities, including, all debts as per books of accounts of the firm. He was entitled to carry on the business under the old name and style. The other t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1996MP68; 1996(0)MPLJ697
R.S. Garg, J.1. The defendants Nos. 1and 3, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 6-3-1984 passed in Civil Suit No. 94B of 1976 by the First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Raipur, decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for a sum of Rs. 1.03,413.88 with costs and interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till realisation, have preferred this appeal.2. The original plaintiff Mohanlal Vyas, since deceased, father of plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 6 and husband of plaintiff No. 1, was a business-man and a man of means. Defendant No. 1 is a firm carrying on a cinema business in the name and styles of M/s. Sharda Talkies at Raipur. The firm 'M/s. Sharda Talkies' (hereinafter referred to as the 'firm' for the sake of brevity) was managed by the deceased Shyam Charan, now represented by the legal representatives, respondents Nos. 7 to 9 and appellant No. 2/defendant No. 3, namely, Lalit Kumar Tiwari. As the original plaintiff and defendant No. 2 died during...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1964MP161; [1964]15STC128(MP)
Dixit, C.J. 1. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner questions the legality of the assessment to sales tax made against a partnership firm doing business under the name and style of M/s Chhotalal Keshaoram and Co., Rajanandgaon, by an order passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Raipur, on 20th July 1954. By that order the taxable turnover of the firm for the period from 17th February 1950 to 30th November 1951 was determined at Rs. 1,96,000/-and the amount of sales tax payable by the firm was found to be Rs. 6,125/-. The petitioner also challenges the legality of the notices issued to the' firm in Form XII on 8th December 1952, 23rd October 1953, 6th May 1954 and 24th May 1954, under Section 11(5) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, (here, inafter referred to as the Act), pursuant to which the impugned assessment was made. He prays that the said notices, the assessment order made by the Sales Tax Officer, Raipur, the demand no...
Tag this Judgment!