Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.57 seconds)Section 26 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Section 48 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
A.V.S. Sathappa Chetty And Anr. vs S.N. Subramanian Chetty on 19 July, 1927
The Privy Council in the case of Sathappa Chetty v. S.N. Subrahmanyan Chetty (supra) had laid down the proposition that filing a plaint in a suit for dissolution would put an end to the partnership at will.
N. V. Shanmugham And Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 23 April, 1970
He referred to the following rulings-CIT v. Indira Balkrishna [1960] 39 ITR 546 (SC), N.V. Shanmugham & Co. v. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 310 (SC), CIT v. Laxmidas Devidas [1937] 5 ITR 584 (Bom.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Laxmidas Devidas on 30 March, 1937
He referred to the following rulings-CIT v. Indira Balkrishna [1960] 39 ITR 546 (SC), N.V. Shanmugham & Co. v. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 310 (SC), CIT v. Laxmidas Devidas [1937] 5 ITR 584 (Bom.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Krishna Reddy. on 17 January, 1962
), CIT v. Krishna Reddy [1962] 46 ITR 784 (AP) and Dwarakanath Harischandra Pitale In re [1937] 5 ITR 716 (Bom.).
Banarsi Das vs Seth Kanshi Ram & Others(And Connected ... on 17 December, 1962
In Banarsi Das Kundanlal v. Kanshi Ram AIR 1963 SC 1165, the Supreme Court referred to Section 43(1) and 43(2) of the Partnership Act and observed that the firm could be dissolved as from the date mentioned in the notice as the date of dissolution or, if no date is so mentioned, as from the date of communication of the notice. The Supreme Court, therefore, observed that the date of the service of summons accompanied by a copy of the plaint cannot be regarded as the date of dissolution of the partnership and Section 43 of the Partnership Act would be of no assistance. However, the Supreme Court proceeded to observe that even assuming that the term "notice" in the above provision was wide enough to include within it a plaint filed in a suit for dissolution of partnership, Sub-section (2) of Section 43 of the Partnership Act itself provides that the firm will be deemed to be dissolved as from the date of communication of notice. The Supreme Court, therefore, stated that it would follow that a partnership would be deemed to be dissolved when the summons accompanied by a copy of the plaint was served on the defendant where there is only one defendant, and on all defendants where there are several defendants. The Supreme Court held that since the partnership would be deemed to be dissolved only from one date, the date of dissolution would have to be regarded to be the one on which the last summons was served. Since in the case before it the Supreme Court was not clear about that date, it held that the High Court was in error in holding that the suit was barred by time. In the above judgment the Supreme Court had no doubt left the matter open as regards the date of dissolution of a partnership at will on the mere filing of a suit. However, in further observations referred to above, to the effect that the partnership would be deemed to be dissolved from the date on which the last summons were served, would seem to indicate that the Supreme Court was inclined to take the view that a partnership at will would stand dissolved on the service of the summons on the defendant. In the instant case, a receiver had been appointed by the City Civil Court, as pointed out above, on 7-3-1974, which clearly indicates that the summons had been served on the parties before that date.
Addanki Narayanappa & Anr vs Bhaskara Krishtappa And 13 Ors on 21 January, 1966
As laid down by the Supreme Court in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa AIR 1966 SC 1300, which is referred to in the later decision in Malabar fisheries Co. (supra), during the subsistence of the partnership no partner can deal with any portion of the property as his own but upon the dissolution of the firm every partner is entitled to a share in the assets of the firm which remain after satisfying the liabilities set out in Clause (a) and Sub-clauses (i), (ii), (iii) of Clause (b) of Section 48 of the Partnership Act. The question that now arises is whether the partners of a dissolved firm would constitute an AOP.