Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)134CTR(SC)167; JT1996(5)SC254; (1996)9SCC33
B.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 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 tax due fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1517; 2007(2)ARBLR1(SC); 2007(2)AWC1858(SC); 2007(4)CTC417; JT2007(4)SC523; 2007(4)SCALE562
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The above appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 10.02.2006 passed by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Arbitration Application No. 7 of 2005 dismissing the application moved by the appellant under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrator.BACKGROUND FACTS:3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - Chandra Prakash Goel and Rakesh Aggarwal along with Dulari Devi, mother of the appellant - Ravi Prakash Goel and Pushplata were carrying on business of sale and purchase of sanitary goods in the name and style of M/s Kumar and Company under the Partnership Deed dated 09.08.1983. Pushplata retired from partnership w.e.f. 31.03.1992. Thereafter, other partners carried on the business and a new partnership deed was executed on 01.04.1992.4. Clause 5 of the same provided that the net profits of the partnership business as per accounts maintained after deduction of all neces...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [2003]42SCL153(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. An order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 01.03.2002 passed in A.A. No. 57 of 2002 whereby and whereunder an Arbitration Application filed by the petitioner herein purported to be under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as, 'the said Act') was dismissed, is the subject matter of this writ petition. 2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. DLF Real Estate Developers, a partnership firm, comprising of Mahtur Cultivations Pvt. Ltd., Navsansar Agro Products Pvt. Ltd., Dreamland Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vipul Vaibhav Agro Development Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Rajinder Singh and DLF Universal Limited, was constituted. The said partnership was registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. An agreement to sell dated 15.04.1995 was executed by and between the said DLF Real Estate Developers and the appellant herein whereby and whereunder the appellant herein agreed to purchase an office...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 158(2009)DLT102
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The objection to the execution raises for adjudication legal issue, as to what is the liability of the individual co-parcener in a decree against a Hindu Undivided Family carrying business - whether it is to the extent of their share in the assets of the said joint Hindu Undivided Family only or does it extend to their personal assets also.2. The factual matrix in which the aforesaid legal issue has arisen is as under. The decree holder, itself a Hindu Undivided Family through its Karta instituted CS(OS) No. 1129/2002 under Order 37 of the CPC in this Court against 'M/s Sardar Mall Alok Kumar, HUF through Shiv Dayal Jagwayan, Karta' for recovery of Rs. 27,09,905/- with future interest. It was inter-alia stated in the plaint that:the defendant is a Hindu Undivided Family with Shiv Dayal as its Karta his wife Champa Jagwayan as its member and sons Ashish and Alok Jagwayan as co-parceners.3. It was further stated that the decree holder/plaintiff had over a period ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1990Guj190; (1990)2GLR992
ORDER1. Manek Metal Syndicate, the respondent in this revision application Summary Suit No. 7034/80 in the City Civil Court at Bombay against Variety Body Builders, a partnership firm for recovering Rs.10610-36 with interest and costs. The suit was decreed ex Party for an amount of Rs. 12905-32. It appears that the decree holder recovered Rs.5750/- from two partners of the said, firm. As the remaining amount of Rs. 155-32 could not be recovered by the decree-holder, it filed Execution Application in the City Civil Court and got the same transferred to the District Court at Baroda. That Court transferred the said decree to the Court of Civil Judie (S.D.), Vadodara for execution. The learned Civil Judge issued Jangam warrant for the properties of the partnership firm but as no property belonging to the partnership was found at the place mentioned in the warrant the degree-holder applied to that Court to issue notices to Prabhatilal Sharma, Jugal kishore Prabhatilal Sharma and the two pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1997Guj24; (1997)1GLR774
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The appellants have questioned the legality and validity of the judgment and decree recorded in Summary Civil Suit No. 712 of 1984 by the City Civil Court Judge, at Ahmedabad on 29th April, 1994, decreeing the suit of the respondent No. 1 Vijaya Bank for a sum of Rupees 5,66,368/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs. 3,76,000/.- from the date of the suit till, realisation, by invoking the aid of the provisions of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the 'Code').2. At the admission stage we found that there was no any illegality in passing the impugned judgment and decree. However, we had called for the record and proceedings after issuing notice to the contesting respondent No. 1 Vijaya Bank. After having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the appellats and the respondent Vijaya Bank and considering the testimonial and documentary collections emerging from the record of the present case, we are of the opinion that the appeal is required ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1984)40CTR(Raj)54; [1984]147ITR486(Raj)
Bhatnagar, J. 1. In compliance with the directions of this court in D.B. Civil Misc. Income-tax Reference No. 117 of 1972, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (hereinafter to be referred to as ' the Tribunal '), filed a statement of the case and referred the following question under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961:'Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances found by the Tribunal there was material to come to the conclusion that the partnership firm constituted by the deed dated July 1, 1959, was not genuine ?'2. The facts of the case, relevant for answering the question under reference, are as under :Ramesh Chandra Moondra, in his individual capacity, was running a business known as Subhash Medical Stores, Bhilwara, since November, 1955. He executed a sale deed on July 1, 1959, for a consideration of Rs. 4,500. for the goodwill, in the name of his wife, Smt. Chandra Kanta Moondra, and his brother's wife, Smt. Shanta N. Maheshwari. On the same date the two ladies en...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1947Mad287; (1947)1MLJ20
Rajamannar, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 4 and 6 against a preliminary decree for partition made in favour of the first respondent by the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 13 are Mahcmedans and alleged to be co-sharers. The other defendants are alienees from some of the defendants of portions of the properties in suit. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to 19/240th share in the properties set out in the schedules to the plaint.2. Though there was some contest in the trial Court, there was no dispute before us about the relationship between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 13. One Pakkiri Taragan had four sons, Alliyar, Sheik Uduman, Syed Ahmed and Ghosu Muhammad and a daughter Kathija. Alliyar married one Nagoor Meeral and by her he had a son Syed Ahamad and a. daughter Mukkuthi. The plaintiff is the husband of Mukkuthi. Nagoor Meeral, before she married Alliyar, was the widow of one Abu Bucker, by whom she had a son named S.M. Muhammad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad764; (1937)2MLJ627
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The main question argued in this second appeal is one of limitation. The suit is to recover a sum of Rs. 709-7-0 due in respect of dealings had with the first and second defendants who carried on business under the name of Seetharamanjaneya Rice Mill. The claim would be admittedly ramayya. barred by limitation but for an acknowledgment of liability contained in the letter Ex. F executed by the first defendant on the 28th October, 1926. The second defendant, who is the appellant in this second appeal, resists the claim on the ground that Ex. F is not binding on him on two grounds: (1) The letter was intended to be executed by both the defendants but it is only signed by the first defendant and therefore' inoperative as against him (second defendant). (2) On the date of Ex. F there was a decree for dissolution of partnership made in O.S. No. 244 of 1923 and the first defendant could no longer act for him.2. The first contention can be easily disposed of. Though th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1979]117ITR308(Mad)
Mohan, J. 1. These writ petitions are for prohibition prohibiting the respondents herein from taking recovery proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), relating to the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64 seeking to recover a sum of Rs. 1,25,858 in pursuance of the demand dated January 29, 1975. 2. The short facts are as follows : The father of the petitioner was a partner in three firms, (1) M/s. S. S. Sannanna Chettiar & Sons, (2) M/s. Shanmugasundaram Textiles, and (3) M/s. Mari Chettiar & Co. The petitioner retired from the firm of M/s. S. S. Sannanna Chettiar & Sons on April 19, 1963. The business of the said firm was continued under a new and different partnership arrangement. In other words, there was a change in the constitution of the firm of M/s. S. S. Sannanna Chettiar & Sons as per the provisions of Section 187(2)(a) of the Act. After the petitioner retired from the partnership, the business was car...
Tag this Judgment!