Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (4.06 seconds)
Documents citing Sudhansu Kanta vs Manindra Nath on 5 October, 1964

Bahubali Estates Ltd vs Sewnarayan Khubchand & Ors on 13 April, 2022

AIR1963Pat221 . The learned Judges relied on the English law that the personal assets introduced by a partner into the firm as his contribution to its capital becomes the property of the firm by reason of the intention and agreement of the parties. The view does not spring from the consideration that there is no transfer. The view is that no document of transfer is required and that, therefore, registration is unnecessary. The Patna High Court reiterated that view in Sudhansu Kanta v. Manindra Nath".
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - S Sen - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs Dr. C. Kurshid on 18 August, 1988

221 and Sudhansu Kanta v. Manindra Nath AIR 1965 Pat. 144, the Supreme Court held that the view taken by the learned Judges of the Patna High Court in these two decisions, does not spring from the consideration that there is no transfer, that the view is that no document of transfer is required and that therefore registration is unnecessary. Therefore, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that when the assessee brought the shares of the limited companies into the partnership firm as his contribution to his capital in the said cases, there was a transfer of a capital asset within the meaning of the terms of Section 45 of the Income-tax Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Madras Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Castron Technologies Limited vs Castron Mining Limited on 12 July, 2013

35. Great emphasis has been placed by Mr. Mookherjee on the judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Sudhansu Kanta vs. Manindra Nath (supra) on the ground that any violation of Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules which is mandatory results in a void contract for transfer of the mining lease and therefore the maxim in pari delicto is not applicable.
Calcutta High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 3 - N Mhatre - Full Document

Devi Textiles And Ors. vs S. Suganthi on 19 July, 1999

Therefore, the observation of the Lord Chancellor that even in a case of dissolution of partnership when the court finds that the firm must be dissolved, a receiver should be appointed as a matter of course, equally applies when the suit is for the distribution of the assets of a dissolved firm, A Division Bench of this Court in Sudhansu Kanta v. Manindra Nath, held that a receiver is to be appointed as a matter of course when a partnership has already been dissolved under the orders of the Court, if the partnership has already been dissolved and any of the parties has come to the Court for seeking his relief as an ex-partner. A receiver can be appointed to take charge of the partnership assets, collect the same and convert it into cash if necessary to discharge the debts of the linn and thereafter divide the surplus between the partners and in a suit for dissolution of a partnership, a receiver can also be appointed before the final adjudication if the circumstances of the case justify such a measure. Therefore, the question arises as to whether the present suit is for the dissolution of a partnership firm and for accounts or it is a suit for distribution of the assets of a dissolved firm."
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Amber Corporation on 4 July, 1980

As regards the other question mentioned above as question No. 1, the High Court in the above case placed reliance on Firm Ram Sahay Mall Rameshwar Dayal v. Bishwanath Prasad, AIR 1963 Pat 221, and Sudhansu Kanta v. Manindra Nath, AIR 1965 Pat 144, but held that they need not decide this point finally as it was not referred to them, and it was even contrary to the facts which were mentioned in para. 3 of the statement of the case, before them. The revenue then moved an application before the Tribunal for referring the above-mentioned question of law for the opinion of this court. The Tribunal in its opinion thought that there was no question of law arising in the case and, as such, dismissed the application filed by the revenue. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur, in the above circumstances, submitted an application before this court for giving a direction to the Tribunal for stating a case and referring the above question of law for the opinion of this court. This court allowed the application and gave a direction to the Tribunal to state a case and refer the above question of law for the opinion of this court.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - N M Kasliwal - Full Document

Rajesh Kumar Agrawal vs Virendra Kumar Agrawal And Others on 17 May, 1993

In the case of Sudhansu Kanta v. Manindra Nath, reported in AIR 1965 Pat 144, it has been held that before applying the principle of Section 14 of the Partnership Act there must be evidence that the property was brought into stocks of the firm through any of the methods mentioned in the said section. Persons may be mere co-owners of the property and may yet be partners in the profits made from its use. Evidence of mere user of property by the firm for its business does not make it partnership property.
Allahabad High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Sheonarain Jaiswal And Ors. vs Shree Kripa Shankar Jaiswal And Anr. on 23 March, 1971

A division Bench of this Court in Sudhansu Kanta v. Manindra Nath, AIR 1965 Pat 144 held that a receiver is to be appointed as a matter of course when a partnership is dissolved under the orders of the Court, if the partnership has already been dissolved and any of the parties has come to the Court for seeking his relief as an ex-partner. A receiver can be appointed to take charge of the partnership assets, collect the same and convert it into cash if necessary to discharge the debts of the firm and thereafter divide the surplus between the partners and in a suit for dissolution of a partnership, a receiver* can also be appointed before the final adjudication if the circumstances of the case justify such a measure. Therefore, the question arises as to whether the present suit is for the dissolution of a partnership firm and for accounts or it is a suit for distribution of the assets of a dissolved firm.
Patna High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next