Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.42 seconds)The Member, Board Of Revenue vs Arthur Paul Benthall on 4 October, 1955
It must be noted that what was being partitioned or what was said to be partitioned in that particular case of Madras High Court referred to in Board of Revenue v. A. P, Benthall (supra) were the family properties and not the allotment of partnership property or, dissolution of the firm.
Addanki Narayanappa & Anr vs Bhaskara Krishtappa And 13 Ors on 21 January, 1966
The Full Bench of the Madras High Court in that case referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa's case (AIR 1966 SC 1300) (supra) but the decision in Dewas Cine Corporation case (supra) does not appear to have been brought to the attention of the Full Bench. It may be pointed out that the relevant provision of the Stamp Act before the Full Bench of the Madras High Court defined an instrument of partition as an instrument whereby co-owners of any property divide or agree to divide such property in severalty, and includes also a final order for effecting a partition passed by any revenue authority or any Civil Court and an award by an arbitrator directing a partition. The Full Bench of the Madras High Court proceeded upon the footing that the property consisting of the wholesale and retail business was owned by the two partners at the time of the execution of the instrument as co-owners. With great respect to the learned Judges of the Madras High Court instead of ascertaining as to whether the partnership property could be said to have beer held by the partners during the subsistence of the partnership as co-owners and instead of examining the legal position in connection with what happens when a firm is dissolved, they straightway proceeded on the footing that during the subsistence of the partnership, the Properties we-e held by the partners as co-owners.
C.I.T., U.P vs Bankey Lal Vaidya (Dead) By L.R.S on 21 January, 1971
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bankey Lal Vaidya, (AIR 1971 SC 2270) (supra) and Velo Industries (siipra) is that whatever a partner gets either in the shape of money or in the shape of an immovable property which prior to the dissolution was a property of the partnership firm, is his share in the surplus of the assets of the firm which remained after the liabilities and other outgoings of the firm are provided for. There is no concept of co-ownership amongst partners during the subsistence of the partnership. The partnership properties are not held by the partners as co-owners. The property belongs to the firm and it merely vests in all the partners because the firm has no legal entity. But such vesting does not mean that all the partners are the co-owners of the Property.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madhya ... vs Dewas Cine Corporation on 8 November, 1967
We cannot accept this decision as laying down the correct law and in any event in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income tax v. Dewas Cine Corporation (supra), it must, be regarded as devoid of authority."
The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
The Indian Partnership Act, 1932
The Bombay Stamp Act, 1958
Article 47 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Vrajlal Makandas Valiya vs L.D. Joshi, Collector on 5 October, 1970
Thus the view that the interest of a partner in partnership assets is to be treated as if it was an interest of a co-owner in a property wag in terms dissented from in the decision, of the Full Bench of this High Court in Vrajlal Makandas Valiya v. L. D. Joshi (supra).