Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act 1932 section 17 rights and duties of partners Court: jharkhand Year: 2003

Jul 31 2003 (HC)

Tata Cummins Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Jul-31-2003

Reported in : [2003(4)JCR52(Jhr)]; [2006]145STC323(Jharkh)

..... us that the acceptance of this submission will be straining the language of the notification and acting against the normal understanding of the expression 'partner' in law. obviously, a company incorporated under the indian companies act has a distinct entity, different from a firm as defiend in the indian partnership act. the notification contempaltes three types of ownership of the leasehold; (i) exclusive ownership orproprietorship; (ii) ownership ..... to the benefit of the aforesaid two notifications and in such a situation, it would be inappropriate for this court to exercise its jurisdiction. on examining section 46 of the act with particular reference to sub-section (4) thereof relied on by the learned advocate general, we find that it is really a suo motu power on the commissioner on his own motion ..... additional solicitor general. he submits that the above contentions based on interpretation of clause (6) of the scheme were not raised before the high court, the high court has, therefore, rightly not dealt with the same. it appears that when the denial of exemption was challenged before the high court, the aforesatd contentions in terms were not raised.'8. the supreme ..... or whether it had established its industry on a piece of land or in a building taken on lease under a registered lease for a minimum period of fifteen years.17. the admitted facts show that after obtaining 37.19 acres of land from telco from out of the lands held by telco under tisco under a sub-lease, tata .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 12 2003 (HC)

Bishnu Dayal Gupta and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Dec-12-2003

Reported in : IV(2004)BC84

..... miscellaneous petition has again been preferred by these petitioners to quash the order of the revisional court who has directed that the charges are made out under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act and under section 420, ipc to be framed against them. it does not mean that when the magistrate at this stage did not find charge to be framed under ..... magistrate perused the complainant petition along with the documents produced, considered the statements of the witnesses and found that charge under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act is made out against the petitioner. bishnu dayal gupta and charge under section 420, ipc is made out against the petitioners, sushil kumar gupta and anand swaroop gupta. hence, by order dated 19.3.2002, ..... complainant o.p. no. 2 which he collected towards running capital of the business started at rajasthan which was subsequently closed. the complainant had issued notice under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act by registered post which was refused by the petitioners. however, notices sent under certificate of posting were received. thus, the plea taken by the petitioners that ..... in complaint case no. 46/1999 that he owned and managed a business in khairtal in rajasthan. the said business was originally a partnership business and was running, under the name and style of chanduka oil mills in partnership with the petitioner no, 2 sushil kumar gupta, who consequently retired from the business and, thus, o.p. no. 2-complainant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 22 2003 (HC)

Green Woods Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Jul-22-2003

Reported in : [2004(1)JCR238(Jhr)]; (2004)IIILLJ377Jhar

..... , which is a government company. however it has neither been created' under the permission or by virtue of confirmant of power of the central government.17. in our assessment under section 2(b)(ii) of the act for the purpose of the institute, the appropriate government is the state government. it is also not disputed that the appellant has already paid minimum wages ..... than the minimum wages fixed by the central government and in that connection, on the basis of the report of the labour enforcement officer (c) claim case under section 20(2) of the act was also filed, but there was no question for reference of any industrial dispute, for which a determination was required to be made whether central or state government ..... engaged in agricultural operations and it is their liability under law to ensure payment of minimum wages to the contract workers, otherwise those workers would be deprived of their fundamental rights and minimum wages. the regional labour commissioner accordingly directed the contractor-appellant to pay a sum of rs. 3,88,421.13 paise towards difference of wages along with three ..... appellant is a partnership firm. it was engaged by the indian institute of coal management ranchi. (for short 'hcm') for butification of its gardens of the campus, including maintenance of flowers, etc. for this purpose, the appellant had engaged 43 labours and the work was started from 1.4.1998. the appellant had duly obtained a licence under section 12 of the contract .....

Tag this Judgment!


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