9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (7) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Judge(s) : J. C. SHAH. and K. S. HEGDE. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by SHAH J.-- A firm styled Sir Hukumchand Mannalal and Company was formed under a deed dated July 16, 1948, to carry on the business of "managing and selling agents" of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. Sir Hukumchand and his son, Rajkumar Singh, were two of the five partners of the firm. They represented ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h, were partners in the firm on behalf of the Hindu undivided family and there was nothing in law which prevented two or more coparceners of a Hindu undivided family representing the family from entering into a partnership with a stranger or strangers. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the following question was referred by the Tribunal: "Whether, in the facts and circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ger and the other person, and by the partnership agreement no member of the family except the manager acquires a right or interest in the partnership. The junior members of the family may make a claim against the manager for treating the income or profits received from the partnership as a joint family asset, but they cannot claim to exercise the rights of partners nor be liable as partners." T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r as defined by the Indian Contract Act. In such a case the family as a unit does not become a partner, but only such of its members as in fact enter into a contractual relation with the stranger: the partnership will be governed by the Act." It is clearly enunciated that one or more members of a Hindu undivided family may enter into a contractual relation in the nature of a partnership with a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o have so agreed are members of a Hindu undivided family. It is now settled law that in considering an application for registration of a firm, the Income-tax Officer is not concerned to determine in whom the beneficial interest in the share in the partnership vests: Commissioner of Income-tax v. A. Abdul Rahim Co., Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bagyalakshmi Co. In our judgment, the High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
