Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act 1932 section 17 rights and duties of partners Court: delhi Year: 2003 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.100 seconds)

May 28 2003 (HC)

R.K. Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-28-2003

Reported in : 2003IVAD(Delhi)557; III(2003)BC231; 105(2003)DLT199; 2003(69)DRJ694

..... . 17. plaintiff has successfully proved that the person who has signed and duly verified the plaint is one of the partners of plaintiff firm. exhibits p.w.2/a and 2/b are the original certificate of registration as well as as form a by virtue of which name of the plaintiff firm was registered as partnership firm and thereforee section 69 of the indian partnership act ..... providing that on behalf of the partnership firm, only a partner can institute the suit cannot come to the rescue of the defendant and, thus, issue is decided in favor of the plaintiff ..... .issue no. 38. p.w.1 shri h.s. dharam sattu, executive engineer of defendant-dda has admitted service of notice under section 53b of ..... the delhi development act. over .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 2003 (HC)

Sailesh Textile Industries Vs. British Airways and anr

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-31-2003

Reported in : 2003IVAD(Delhi)276; 2003(69)DRJ683

..... pleaded in the plaint that the petitioner is a registered partnership firm duly registered under the indian partnership act with their head office located in bombay. the plaint was signed by mr. vipin kumar khanna, a partner of the plaintiff. photocopies of the partnership deed and the extract from the register of firms bombay ..... adducing evidence of the registrar of firms. the plaintiff having failed to proved that it was a registered partnership firm, section 69 of the partnership act would come into play and places a bar on an unregistered partnership firm from filing a suit against a third party. 23. in kelson constructions v. versha spinning mills ..... at the destination or from the date of on which the aircraft ought to have arrived or from the date when the carriage stopped. the right to damages extinguished if action was not brought within a period of two years. 14. applying the principles laid down in : [1960]3scr820 ..... air2001delhi25 . the decision is distinguishable on facts. that was a case of unauthorised delivery. the said judgment thereforee is of no help to the plaintiff. 17. in view of the above discussion, this issue is decided in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff. the suit having been filed beyond ..... their designation. on enquiries, defendant no.1 was unable to give the whereabouts of the said consignment. letters dated 10.1.1977 and 17.2.1977 were also sent to defendant no.1 but no reply was received. plaintiff informed defendant no.2 of the loss of goods .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 2003 (HC)

Mr. NavIn Kumar and anr. Vs. Standard Restaurant and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-29-2003

Reported in : 2003IIAD(Delhi)289; 2003(1)ARBLR685(Delhi); 103(2003)DLT209; 2003(68)DRJ702; 2003(2)RAJ65

..... vehement opposition inter-alia on the ground that during the pendency of a suit seeking the dissolution of a firm, on just and equitable grounds in terms of section 44(g) of the indian partnership act, the arbitrator would not be competent to adjudicate upon the disputes raised by the applicant.reliance was placed on the decision of the apex court in harayana telecom ..... nath monga) shall always prevail. however, if so desired by the party in difference, the dispute may be referred to arbitrator in which case the 1st partner (shri kamal nath monga) shall have the right to appoint any person as the sole arbitrator for the decision of the disputed matter and the arbitrator's decision shall be conclusive and binding on all ..... resolving matters. the first stage provided by agreement between the parties, is of amicable solution. i would thereforee consider it the duty of this court, to direct the parties to make an attempt at amicable settlement by all the partners attending a meeting for the said purpose to be held at the standard restaurant premises on saturday, the 22.02.2003 at ..... any objection with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. it is further provided in section 16(2) that such a plea will have to be raised not later than the submission of the statement of defense.17. in terms of section 16(6), in case any parties are aggrieved of such decision, the challenge has to be by way .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 19 2003 (HC)

K.L. Verma and anr. Vs. Shri V.K. Sharma and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-19-2003

Reported in : 2003(3)ARBLR532(Delhi); 108(2003)DLT699; 2004(72)DRJ47; 2004(1)RAJ309

..... the respondent was that as the partnership was not registered under the provisions of the partnership act, the suit was not maintainable and was barred under section 69 of the said act. no issue was framed by the trial court on the question as to whether the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act and the court by order ..... dated 20.12.1994, allowed the application under section 20 of the ..... (3) shows that a suit to enforce a right to sue for dissolution and rendition of accounts is not barred by provisions of section 69 of the partnership act and even if the firm is not registered and the person suing has not been registered as a partner of the firm, the partner can still enforce his right to enforce dissolution of firm and rendition of accounts ..... arbitration act directing the original agreement to be filed in court and appointed an arbitrator to enter into the reference and decide .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 2003 (HC)

D.C.M. Shri Ram Industries Ltd. Vs. Indo Organics and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-27-2003

Reported in : 2003(66)DRJ256A; 2003(88)ECC119a

..... 2 can take advantage of his retirement from defendant no. 1 firm prior to the institution of this suit. section 32 of the indian partnership act, 1932 provides remedy to the retiring partner against any liability of the firm towards third party. sub-sections (2) & (3) of section 32 is relevant and significant for the purpose of deciding grant or refusal to leave to defendant no. 2. it ..... reads as under :- 32. retirement of a partner xxxxx (2) a retiring partner may be discharged from any liability to any third party for acts ..... if he has any dispute with other partners as to the non payment of the entire agreed amount of rs. 2 lac towards cash credit ..... its partners. the very fact that defendant no. 2 did not give any notice in terms of section 32 upon third party and as per his own version, public notice was given some time in december, 1995 whereas he retired from the partnership firm in april, 1995 does not entitle him to leave to defend because of provisions of section 32 of the partnership act. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 2003 (TRI)

O.P. Arora Vs. Syndicate Bank and ors.

Court : DRAT Delhi

Decided on : Apr-30-2003

Reported in : III(2003)BC102

..... firm binds the other partner also. he relies upon section 22 of the indian partnership act, 1932, which provides that in order to bind the firm any act done or any instrument executed by a partner should be dune or executed in the name of a firm. he also relies upon section 25 of the indian partnership act, which provides that every partner is liable jointly with all other partners, and also severally for ..... all acts of the firm ..... with costs and interest claimed in the o.a. from all the three defendants jointly and severally, after adjusting the amount already realised from defendants 1 and 3.15. as rightly contended by the appellant/2nd defendant, such an order against the appellant/2nd defendant, who is not a party to the compromise and the joint application could not have been ..... the appellant/2nd defendant may get this property released at any time before 30.6.2003 by mortgaging any property equivalent to the then outstanding amount, acceptable to the bank.17. further, this letter dated 1.8.2001 is only a proposal or an offer for settlement, that too on the terms mentioned by the appellant/2nd defendant. in these .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 2003 (TRI)

Chandra Agencies Vs. Income-tax Officer [Alongwith

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Decided on : Aug-29-2003

Reported in : (2004)89ITD1(Delhi)

..... was filed on the address of 17, hotel continental, regal building, new delhi. thereafter the firm was dissolved on 31.7.1986 and address in the dissolution deed was given as c-89, south extension, part-ii, new delhi. thereafter, a public notice under section 45(1) of indian partnership act was given in regard to ..... 493, the hon'ble calcutta high court has held that where the officer, who has to serve a notice of re-assessment under section 34 of the indian income-tax act, 1922 on the appellant, went to his address but found that he had gone out, offer the notice to a person who ..... paragraph that the present address of the assessee came to the notice of the department on 19.3.1997. summons under section 131 were also served on shri kapil khanna, partner for necessary compliance.proceedings were attended by shri khanna, along with smt. nitika khanna, advocate and requisite requirements asked by the ..... noting is borne out from the records available on record that assessing officer has attempted to know the whereabouts of the firm as well as of its partners. the assessment records were available with the assessing officer and the last known address i.e., 4413, jatavpura, pahari dhiraj, delhi was available on ..... and in whose presence the copy was affixed. in resorting to the method of substituted service under order v, rule 20 it is the duty of the department to discharge its onus by showing that the authority concerned had reason to believe that the assessee was keeping out of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 30 2003 (HC)

interads Advertising (P) Ltd. Vs. Palmex Enterprises and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-30-2003

Reported in : 2003VIAD(Delhi)47; I(2004)BC502; 1(2003)DLT106; 2003(71)DRJ795

..... 1 and 2 who have hopelessly failed to put up any defense. even so far as indian law is concerned, there is no legal impediment in a partnership firm authorising any other person to act on its behalf; for that matter even a sole proprietor can execute a general power of ..... no. 1 is a proprietory concern of defendant no. 2. in fact plaint itself provides that ' the defendant no. 2 is one of the partners of the concern named, palmex enterprises ...... an exporter, inter alia, of brass scrap and other goods'. i hold that the documents sought to be ..... which indicates so. once again, it was the sole responsibility of the plaintiff to locate and nominate an inspector/surveyor who could adequately discharge these duties. this is normally specified by the buyer in international trade. in my view there is no discrepancy in the documentation which defendant no. 3 ..... not sufficient to make this case an exceptional case justifying interference by restraining the appellant from enforcing the bank guarantees. the high court was, thereforee, not right in restraining the appellant from enforcing the bank guarantees'. 21. in u.p. state sugar corporation v. m/s. sumac international limited, : air1997sc1644 ..... or underlying transaction. the autonomy of an irrevocable letter of credit is entitled to protection. as a rule courts refrain from interfering with that autonomy.' 17. thereafter, in united commercial bank vs. bank of india and others, : [1981]3scr300 the apex court had opined that courts ought not to .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 23 2003 (HC)

Goyal Gramodyog Sansthan and ors. Vs. Seth Brothers and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-23-2003

Reported in : 2003(70)DRJ393; 2003(27)PTC142(Del)

..... well as upon the common law principles of tort to passing off action was not barred under sub-section (2) of section 69 of the partnership act for in both the situations the unregistered partnership could not be said to be enforcing any right 'arising out of the contract'. this argument, thereforee, should not further detain this court from rejecting the plea in this regard. 19 ..... the case (see tata iron steel supra). 17. consequently, the argument that assertion in the plaint that respondent no. 2 was the stockist was not at all sufficient to confer jurisdiction falls on the ground and has to be rejected. 18. as regards the plea of non-registration of partnership under section 69(2) of the partnership act in para j of the petition, though ..... 658 (db) [para 21] ; inspiration clothes & u v. colby international limited 2001 (57) drj 16 [rule d.b. has already been issued.]) ruchi (pvt.) ltd. v. indian flame enterprises and ors. 2001 ptc 876 (delhi), indian herbs research and supply co. ltd. v. laljimal and anr. 2002 (24) ptc 318 (delhi). moreover it has been consistently held that the mere averment that ..... no delay and secondly such a delay is immaterial in the case like the present one. a division bench in rob mathys india pvt. ltd. v. synthes ag chur 1997 (17) ptc (db) in a similar case where the defendants were using the goods of the plaintiffs held that 'delay implicate was certainly no defense to an action for infringement of .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 20 2003 (HC)

Continental and Eastern Agencies Vs. Coal India Limited and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-20-2003

Reported in : 2004IAD(Delhi)294; AIR2003Delhi387; 106(2003)DLT340

..... and company v. krishna glass private limited air 1987 bombay 348 wherein it has been held that section 69 of the partnership act debars filing of the suit on behalf of the firm by the person who is neither one of its partners nor the duly authorized person. as ex. p 6 itself shows that mr. v.p. ..... ) exhibit p-27 is the letter from defendant no. 2 dated 12/16.4.1994 to plaintiff inviting plaintiff to settle the matter without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the present suit.(xxviii) exhibit p-28 is the letter of defendant no. 1 to plaintiff alleging that machines were not ..... two machines. an amendment dated 6.5.1988 was issued by defendant no. 1 to this order. clause 2 of amendment was as follows:-'b. installation:- indian agent of the supplier will install and demonstrate the equipment at site free of cost after foundation are laid, equipment placed on foundation electricals and air liners brought ..... no. 2 dated 27/29.10.1990.(xvi) exhibit p-16 is another receipt dated 19.11.1990 by defendant no. 2 on receipt of machines.(xvii) exhibit p-17 is the confirmation dated 29.11.1990 issued by defendant no. 2.(xviii) exhibit p-18 is the letter dated 21/22.12.1990 by defendant no ..... machines. this document is the document of defendant no. 1 which was initially marked as d-4.(xi) exhibit p-11 is again plaintiff's letter dated 17.5.1988 regarding 15% agency commission.(xii) exhibit p-12 is the letter dated 10.1.1989 regarding shipment of machines.(xiii) exhibit p-13 is the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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