Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract act 1872 Court: madhya pradesh indore Year: 2011 Page 1 of about 3 results (0.057 seconds)

Jul 12 2011 (HC)

Ashish Verma Vs. Neeraj Vyas and Others

Court : Madhya Pradesh Indore

Decided on : Jul-12-2011

..... claimed right to participate in the said partnership business. thus, obviously, the suit of the plaintiff is for enforcement of a right arising out of the contract of partnership and not independent of it. plaintiff has nowhere pleaded that the firm is already dissolved. thus, the suit of the plaintiff is not covered by ..... perusal of the plaint averments and reliefs claimed therein, it is clear that the suit for share in the business of partnership firm has arisen from a contract of partnership. plaintiff has claimed money from the defendant/revisionist as his share in the partnership business. further, in view of the status of the plaintiff as ..... the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to a claim of set-off or other proceeding to enforce a right arising from a contract, but shall not affect,- (a) the enforcement of any right to sue for the dissolution of a firm or for accounts of a dissolved firm, or any ..... is or has been shown in the register of firms as a partner in the firm. (2) no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are ..... be allowed in the light of plaint averments and section 69 of the india partnership act, which reads as follows:- 69. effect of non-registration.-(1) no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this act shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of any person suing as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 22 2011 (HC)

Niranjankumar Awasthi Vs. Ajay Vijaywargiya and Another

Court : Madhya Pradesh Indore

Decided on : Jul-22-2011

..... the suit accommodation from om prakash vijaywargiya, through a broker bhavesh patel. thus, the defendant who is the tenant of om prakash vijaywargiya had no privity of contract with kamal kishore shrivastava. the sale deed executed in respect of the suit accommodation was not by om prakash vijaywargiya, but by kamal kishore who had no ..... 42,000/- being one year's rent. valuation pertaining to arrears of rent, germane for the purpose of ground under section 12 (1) (a) of the act has not been made. 5. it has been contended by the learned counsel shri a.k.chatterjee, appearing for the appellant that there being no relationship of ..... no.54-a/2007, directing thereby eviction on the ground under section 12 (1) (a) and (e) of the m.p. accommodation control act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the act). 2. relevant facts in short are that plaintiff/respondents purchased the suit accommodation from one kamal kishore shrivastava son of chandravilas shrivastava, vide registered sale ..... defendant having not paid the arrears of rent and having not made compliance of section 13 (1) of the act is definitely liable to be evicted on the ground under section 12 (1)(a) of the act. in this appeal also, defendant has not deposited rent as per the mandate of section 13 (1) of ..... the act. thus, no fault is found in the decree on the ground under section 12 (1) (a). 11. accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 2011 (HC)

Mahesh Chandra S/O Late Jagdishchandra Agrawal Vs. Kamal Kumar S/O Sha ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh Indore

Decided on : Jul-28-2011

..... the acknowledgment is undated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it was signed; but subject to the provisions of the indian evidence act, 1872 (1 of 1872), oral evidence of its contents shall not be received. explanation.- for the purposes of this section,- (a) an acknowledgment may be sufficient though ..... wherein it has been observed by this court that the comparison of signatures by court in exercise of powers under section 73 of the indian evidence act is hazardous and it should be left for the experts. i may also successfully refer to the decision of the apex court (1) air 1997 ..... learned counsel for the appellant made a request to this court to examine the documents in exercise of powers under section 73 of the indian evidence act. it is suffice to say that in the facts and circumstances, it is not desirable to examine the disputed document by the court having no ..... from the date of original loan transaction, as observed already, plaintiff has failed to discharge his burden. this apart, section 3 of the limitation act cast a duty on a court of law to dismiss a suit instituted, after the prescribed period of limitation, although limitation has not been set up ..... and its acknowledgment ought to have been made before expiration of the prescribed period of limitation for money suit, as required under section 18 of the limitation act, 1963. section 18 is reproduced here-in-below for convenience: - "18. effect of acknowledgment in writing.-(1) where, before the expiration of the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //