TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Partnership Dissolution: Residue Assets Distribution Exempt from Registration</h1> <h3>N. Khadervali Saheb And Another Versus N. Gudu Sahib (Decd.) And Others</h3> The Supreme Court held that the distribution of residue assets of a partnership firm among partners on dissolution does not require registration under ... Whether an award by which residue assets of a partnership firm are distributed amongst the partners on dissolution of the partnership firm requires registration under section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908? Held that:- The award seeks to distribute the residue after settlement of accounts on dissolution, while distributing their residue the arbitrators allocated the properties to the partners. The award in such circumstances did not requite registration under section 17(1) of the Registration Act. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court is hereby set aside. The result would be that the objections against the award dated October 2, 1972, stand rejected and the award is ordered to be made a rule of the court. Issues: Whether an award distributing residue assets of a partnership firm among partners on dissolution requires registration under section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908Rs.Analysis:The case involved a partnership firm with disputes resolved through arbitration resulting in an award challenged on various grounds. The trial court accepted objections claiming misconduct by arbitrators and the need for registration under section 17 of the Registration Act. The High Court upheld the registration requirement but rejected the misconduct claim. The Supreme Court analyzed the award, emphasizing that a partnership firm's assets belong to the partners individually, and on dissolution, assets are distributed without transfer of ownership. Referring to a previous case, the court clarified that distribution of assets post-dissolution does not necessitate registration under section 17. The court dismissed the argument based on a different case, concluding that the present award did not require registration. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, objections to the award were rejected, and the award was ordered to be enforced by the court. No costs were awarded in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
