.... (2) The plaintiff's suits were dismissed by him primarily on the ground that the suits were not maintainable, as the plaintiff firm was not registered under section 69 (2) of the indian partnership act. The plaintiff - appellant, in each of these cases, argued...from the relative contract of tenancy. It is clear, therefore, that suits for ejectment would be suits of the description contemplated by section 69 (2) of the indian partnership act. (3) We are also of the opinion that, on the express terms of the said section, read in the light of the statutory language, used therein, it will apply to the instant cases. We...three suits for ejectment, which came up to this court in second appeal. The present appeals are directed against decrees of dismissal, passed by chatterji, j. In the above three cases...

..., and whether he is treated as an assignee within Section 29 of the Indian Partnership Act, as some cases do, a sub-partner has definite enforceable rights to claim a share in the profits accrued..., Calcutta Bench, under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act (11 of 1922)(hereinafter called “the Act”). One of the references (Income Tax Reference No. 20 of 1959) was made at the...who must be taken to be acting on behalf of the firm Fatehchand Murlidhar. Mr Sen further urges that the Indian Income Tax Act taxes real income and not notional income and the real income in...

...made in the suit, because Section 590 of the Companies Act makes it clear that Part X of the Act does not affect the operation of the Indian Partnership Act. Section 590 states:“Saving and construction of enactments conferring power to wind up partnership, association or company in certain cases.—Nothing...provisions for winding up of the affairs of a firm which Chapter VI of the Indian Partnership Act contains besides provisions for the dissolution of partnership are left untouched by Section 590 of the Companies Act, 1956. The cases cited...be wound up by the Court. Admittedly this is not a case of voluntary winding up or winding up subject to the supervision of the Court. Chapter VI of the Indian Partnership Act...

...unregistered partnership firm, the above prosecution is not sustainable under S. 69(2) of the Indian partnership Act The effect of non-registration of the Partnership Firm under S. 69 of the partnership Act is applicable only to cases involving...of revision petitioner that the prosecution in this case is not sustainable under S. 69(2) of the Indian partnership Act is not acceptable.5. The counsel for...incompetent to give evidence in this case and there is no proper representation of the Partnership Firm. But under the Partnership Act all partners are agents of the Partnership Firm and therefore, every...

...of the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act to the cases arising under llie Income-tax...this section only applies to a continuing unit as understood under the Indian Partnership Act and does not take into its ambit the cases of such, firms as are dissolved and...firms reconstituted within the meaning of Section 187(2) of the Act could under the strict provisions of the Indian Partnership Act be regarded as the successors of the old firms. Section 188 has been designedly worded to apply to only those cases of...

...whether on the facts and circumstances established in the cases an inference of a partnership firm within the meaning of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 followed and Section 13 was not attracted...concern may describe itself as a firm. That does not necessarily mean that it is a partnership firm within the meaning of Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act as indicated in Section 2(k) of the Act. In our view no facts and circumstances have been found in these cases from...assessee if it is a partnership firm would be liable to tax as a firm on its agricultural income by reason of the charging section, namely, Section 3. In Section 3 of the Indian Income Tax Act...

...conditions mentioned in Ss. 42 and 43 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The second class of cases is where the intervention of the Court is necessary in order to dissolve...S. 7, Cl. (iv)(f) of the Court fees Act of 1870. S. 265 of the Contract Act which was the part of the Act dealing with partnership provides that where a partner is entitled to claim a...of partnership. It was argued before us, that the proper provision of the Act applicable to such a case was Art. 17-B of the Second Schedule which deals with claims incapable of valuation. Such a...

...him, it is necessary that partnership firm should be registered as required under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. 13. Mr. Mehta, has brought to our notice that Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is not applicable in these cases, as...Indian Partnership Act is not applicable for supply of signals to the cable operators. 15. In view of our clear findings in various judgements, prima-facie, I am of the view that Section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act is not applicable in these cases, where... Partnership Expired on 13.6.2012 3. 829 (C) of 2012 Sole Proprietary Expired on 15.7.2012 4. 830 (C) of 2012...

...him, it is necessary that partnership firm should be registered as required under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. 13. Mr. Mehta, has brought to our notice that Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is not applicable in these cases, as...Indian Partnership Act is not applicable for supply of signals to the cable operators. 15. In view of our clear findings in various judgements, prima-facie, I am of the view that Section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act is not applicable in these cases, where... Partnership Expired on 13.6.2012 3. 829 (C) of 2012 Sole Proprietary Expired on 15.7.2012 4. 830 (C) of 2012...

...him, it is necessary that partnership firm should be registered as required under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. 13. Mr. Mehta, has brought to our notice that Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is not applicable in these cases, as...Indian Partnership Act is not applicable for supply of signals to the cable operators. 15. In view of our clear findings in various judgements, prima-facie, I am of the view that Section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act is not applicable in these cases, where... Partnership Expired on 13.6.2012 3. 829 (C) of 2012 Sole Proprietary Expired on 15.7.2012 4. 830 (C) of 2012...

...him, it is necessary that partnership firm should be registered as required under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. 13. Mr. Mehta, has brought to our notice that Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is not applicable in these cases, as...Indian Partnership Act is not applicable for supply of signals to the cable operators. 15. In view of our clear findings in various judgements, prima-facie, I am of the view that Section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act is not applicable in these cases, where... Partnership Expired on 13.6.2012 3. 829 (C) of 2012 Sole Proprietary Expired on 15.7.2012 4. 830 (C) of 2012...

...Partnership Act, 1932. 13. Mr. Mehta, has brought to our notice that Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is not applicable in these cases, as...Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act is not applicable for supply of signals to the cable operators. 15. In view of our clear findings in various judgements, prima-facie, I am of the view that Section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act is not applicable in these cases, where...boxes wherever the partnership firm has not been registered as according to him, it is necessary that partnership firm should be registered as required under Section 69 of the Indian...

...him, it is necessary that partnership firm should be registered as required under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. 13. Mr. Mehta, has brought to our notice that Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is not applicable in these cases, as...Indian Partnership Act is not applicable for supply of signals to the cable operators. 15. In view of our clear findings in various judgements, prima-facie, I am of the view that Section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act is not applicable in these cases, where... Partnership Expired on 13.6.2012 3. 829 (C) of 2012 Sole Proprietary Expired on 15.7.2012 4. 830 (C) of 2012...

...him, it is necessary that partnership firm should be registered as required under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. 13. Mr. Mehta, has brought to our notice that Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is not applicable in these cases, as...Indian Partnership Act is not applicable for supply of signals to the cable operators. 15. In view of our clear findings in various judgements, prima-facie, I am of the view that Section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act is not applicable in these cases, where... Partnership Expired on 13.6.2012 3. 829 (C) of 2012 Sole Proprietary Expired on 15.7.2012 4. 830 (C) of 2012...

...him, it is necessary that partnership firm should be registered as required under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. 13. Mr. Mehta, has brought to our notice that Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is not applicable in these cases, as...Indian Partnership Act is not applicable for supply of signals to the cable operators. 15. In view of our clear findings in various judgements, prima-facie, I am of the view that Section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act is not applicable in these cases, where... Partnership Expired on 13.6.2012 3. 829 (C) of 2012 Sole Proprietary Expired on 15.7.2012 4. 830 (C) of 2012...

...him, it is necessary that partnership firm should be registered as required under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. 13. Mr. Mehta, has brought to our notice that Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is not applicable in these cases, as...Indian Partnership Act is not applicable for supply of signals to the cable operators. 15. In view of our clear findings in various judgements, prima-facie, I am of the view that Section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act is not applicable in these cases, where... Partnership Expired on 13.6.2012 3. 829 (C) of 2012 Sole Proprietary Expired on 15.7.2012 4. 830 (C) of 2012...

...sec. 30 of the indian partnership act 1932 (9 of 1932)." Sec. 30 of the indian partnership act 1932 deals with the cases of minor partners. It has no application to...S.H.Sheth, J.:- (1) Mr. P. V. Nanavaty who appears for judgment debtors nos. 3 and 5 has argued the cases of these two judgment debtors on different lines. So far as...

...Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines...IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian..., New Delhi & Ors. ... Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New...

...Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines...IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian..., New Delhi & Ors. ... Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New...

...Indian commercial men to regard the firm as having some sort of legal entity apart from the partners has been recognised for some purposes in the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. However, in neither of these cases is...good since the passing of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which recognises a distinct entity for a firm apart 4rom the members composing it. It was also urged that keeping...observed:“It is true that the Indian Partnership Act goes further than the English Partnership Act, 1890, in recognising that a...