Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.58 seconds)
Documents citing Maddi Sudarsanam And Ors. vs Borogu Viswanadham Brothers And Ors. on 17 September, 1954

B. Koteswara Rao vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Andhra ... on 10 August, 1961

Similarly, the judgment of Subba Rao C.J. in Sudarsanam v. Viswanadham Bros. does not advance the case of the assessee any further. The rule stated there was that the contract to the contrary need not be in writing. It could be culled out from the conduct of the parties and the surrounding circumstances. We asset to the proposition contained in these two rulings that to constitute an agreement to the contrary it need not be express or reduced to writing and that it could be made out from the conduct either of the original partners or of the surviving partner and the heirs of the deceased as throwing light on the agreement of the original partners. But the conduct of the parties must be such as would inevitably lead to the conclusion that such a contract existed.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Visakha Flour Mills on 23 January, 1976

40. The decision of this court Maddi Sudarsanam v. Borogu Viswanadham Brothers is an authority for the proposition that under Section 42(c) of the Partnership Act, a firm would be dissolved by the death of a partner unless there is a contract to the contrary. That decision arose under the Partnership Act and the point that arises herein did not fall for consideration and, therefore, it is distinguishable.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 70 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Sohanlal Basant Kumar vs Umraomal Chopra on 6 May, 1985

30. The same view was expressed by Subbarao, C.J. as he then was of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Moddi Sudarsanam and Ors. v. Berogu Viswanadham Brothers represented by its power of Attorney and Partner Venkatarathanam and Ors. . It was held in that case that the retirement of death of a partner is although required to be notified under Section 63 to the Register of Firms but a default in notifying the same is not of any relevance in the matter of maintainability of the suit under Section 69(2). It was observed that there was an essential distinction between the constitution of a firm and its dissolution. Non-compliance of the provisions of Section 63(1) in failure to intimate to the Registrar of Firms the death of a partner or the retirement of another partner may have other consequences but they did not effect the maintainability of the suit. Under Section 69(2) only two conditions should be complied with by a firm in order to file a suit to enforce a right arising from a contract. It was observed in the aforesaid case that the second condition laid down in Section 69(2) was also satisfied and the persons suing, i.e. the present partner were shown in the Register of Firms as partners of the firm though the same Register shows two other partners, one of whom died and the other retired. But the presence of their names in the Register of firms as partners of the firm did not effect the essential condition specified in Section 69(2), enabling the partnership firm to file the suit.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 25 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Sharad Vasant Kotak & Ors vs Ramniklal Mohanlal Chawda & Anr on 17 December, 1997

"The second condition laid down in Section 69(2) is also satisfied. The persons now suing i.e. the present partners are shown in the Register of Firms as partners of the firm. though the same Register shows two other partners., own of whom died and the other retired. It may be that the fact of retirement of one of the partners and the death of another should have been notified to the Registrar under Section 63(1) as the said events effected a change in the constitution of the firm. But the default made by the firm in considering the question of the maintainability of the suit under Section 69(2). There is the essential distinction between the constitution of a firm and its dissolution. Non-compliance with the provisions of S. 63(1) may have only other consequences, but under S. 69(2) only two conditions should be complied with by a firm to enforce a right arising from a contract and those two conditions are complied with in the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 26 - K Venkataswami - Full Document

Chunilal Bhagwandas Gandhi vs Ahamed Rowther on 7 August, 1959

7. It was then contended, that the retirement of Mohamed Moideen Rowther from the partnership on 22-3-1945, did not result in the dissolution of the partnership, under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. It was held, in Maddi Sudarsanam v. Viswanadham, (S) AIR 1955 Andhra 12 that there being no provision in the Partnership Act corresponding to Section 253 (7) of the Indian Contract Act which has been superseded, the retirement of a partner could not bring about its dissolution; that was a case of a partnership which consisted of five partners on the retirement of one of whom, the remaining members could still carry on as partners.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1