Court : Chhattisgarh
Decided on : Oct-16-2003
Reported in : 2004(2)MPHT68(CG)
..... no. 1240/2003, (iv) late shrikant gupta and (v) smt. prabha agarwal were the partners. similarly, there was one another partnership firm namely, m/s. rajaram & brothers, mandsaur which was also a registered partnership firm, constituted by a deed of partnership dated 13-08-1989 and registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. the partners of the firm were (i) late rajaram gupta, (ii) subodh kumar gupta, (iii) ..... of accounts a creditor of the firm is neither a necessary nor a property party and therefore, he cannot be added as a defendant. sections 26, 27 and 45 of the partnership act only make clear that the partners of the firm would be liable to the creditor, but they do not enable him to be added as a defendant to the suit ..... of the plaintiffs is that subodh kumar gupta is now creating unnecessary interference and hindrance in the business of the plaintiffs firms without any reason or rhyme and without any right. therefore, he be restrained by way of permanent injunction not to create such interference. in one suit, suryakant gupta has also sought declaration that defendant subodh kumar gupta ..... add these persons as defendants, even if they are not necessary parties in the suits. therefore, the order of the learned district judge is erroneous, illegal and without jurisdiction.17. learned counsel for the respondents argued that under article 227 of the constitution of india, this court has very limited jurisdiction and cannot pass order as an appellate court, therefore .....Tag this Judgment!
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!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-25-2003
Reported in : 2003(3)ALLMR915; 2003(3)ARBLR75(Bom); 2003(5)BomCR807; 2003(3)MhLj373
..... names are not registered with the register of firms. the earlier partnership had petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 1 as partners. the partnership of the year 1990 was registered on 28th may, 1990. this has been so pointed out, considering section 69 of the indian partnership act as amended in the state of maharashtra. it is contended that this court would have no jurisdiction to hear ..... may, 1990. the names of the partners, as shown in the certificate issued, are the petitioners and respondent no. 1 and some others. those others have purportedly retired from the partnership.section 69 of the partnership act, amended in the state of maharashtra, provides that no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by the act shall be instituted in any court by ..... be or to have been a partner in the firm unless ..... or on a behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm any person alleged to .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-17-2003
Reported in : AIR2003SC1614; 2003(2)ALLMR(SC)373; 2003(2)SCALE242; (2003)3SCC445; 2SCR57; 2003(2)LC820(SC)
..... not paid till now. .....'9. we think it necessary to notice sections 32, 37 and 48 of the indian partnership act which read:-'32. retirement of a partner - (1) a partner may retire,- (a) with the consent of all the other partners,(b) in accordance with an express agreement by the partners, or(c) where the partnership is at will, by giving notice in writing to all the other ..... property of the firm. the language used in section 37 is that 'since he ceased to be a partner'. in other words, since he ceased to be a partner, he is entitled to interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the amount of his share in the property of the firm. section 17 itself makes it clear that the relevant date ..... date of commissioner's report may be fluctuating, i.e. it could be earlier or later in the absence of any time-frame. in this view, the high court was right and justified in passing the impugned order upsetting the order of the trial court. we have every good reason to concur with the finding recorded in the impugned order by ..... is the date on which he ceases to be a partner. the proviso to section 37 also says that if option is given to surviving partners to purchase the share of an outgoing partner and if any partner assuming to act in exercise of the option does not in all .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-03-2003
Reported in : 2003(1)ALD(Cri)679; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)497; III(2003)BC352; 2003CriLJ2498
..... partnership deed was not the managing partner of the 1st respondent-firm, and therefore the proceedings are liable to be quashed. learned counsel for the 1st respondent-complainant contended that the name of the 1st respondent-firm was entered in the registrar of firms on 27.8.1991 and, therefore, there is no bar under the provisions of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act ..... that case the complainant-firm was not at all registered under the indian partnership act by the date of issuance of the cheque therein. 8. the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations in the complaint do not constitute an offence under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, cannot be accepted, because it is clearly mentioned in the complaint that ..... m. madhusudhan rao as managing director has a right to file the complaint on behalf of marvel organics is a question of fact to be decided at the time of trial. 7. the copy of the partnership deed, dated 2.6.2001, filed along with the petition shows that one mallela vasu became a partner in the place of mallela koteswara rao who ..... order are for the limited purpose of deciding the issue in the petition and shall not have any bearing on the trial of the case and shall not affect the rights of the parties. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-25-2003
Reported in : 2003(3)ALLMR873; 2003(5)BomCR501; 2003(27)PTC555(Bom); 45SCL335(Bom)
..... question is does the goodwill in the business of the partnership firm exist in this situation 7 it seems to be clear that it does. section 14 of the indian partnership act, 1932 expressly stipulates that the property of the firm will include the goodwill of the business. section 53 recognises the right of the partner to restrain another partner from carrying on business in the firm until the affairs ..... be assigned or transmitted in the same way if at the same time registered trade marks in respect of the same goods are assigned or transmitted to the same person.'17. however, dr. tulzapurkar, learned counsel or the defendant no. 1, submits that a man would have a trade mark in gross. it must be attached to a goodwill and the ..... kong and singapore stopped its sale in singapore. having stopped selling in singapore due to imposition of import duty on toothbrush, it sued the defendant for an injunction against passing-off. this was after they assigned their residual goodwill in singapore together with the right of user of the marks in issue, on an exclusive basis. the injunction was refused throughout and ..... company has been operated b the defendant no. 3 to use the deceptively similar trade marks knowing fully well that the partnership firm has stopped using those marks and possibly also with a view to be relieved of the duty to purchase the marks in the course of sale of the marks upon dissolution and winding up. in this view of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-30-2003
Reported in : (2004)ILLJ895Bom; 2004(2)MhLj547
..... be dissected from that of m/s. copper chimney, which was already covered under the provisions of the said act.3. the few facts relevant for the decision are that the petitioner is a partnership firm duly registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act and engaged in the business of running a hotel in the premises at saki naka, andheri, mumbai. on completion ..... not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to claim infancy protection even after the amendment to the section 16 of the said act. it was also sought to be contended that before passing of the impugned order, the petitioner had never claimed any right for continuation of the infancy period beyond 11th september, 1997 and the plea in that regard has been ..... benefits under the legislation could be retrospectively taken away by legislation, but then the statute taken away such rights or benefits must expressly reflect its intention to that effect. the infancy period prior to the amended provision of section 16(1)(d) was five years in the case of establishments employing 20 to 50 workers and in the event this infancy benefit ..... legislature should have been clearly reflected in the amended provision itself that the rights and benefits which had already accrued stood withdrawn. the amended clause 16(1)(d) came on the statute book on 2 june, 1988, when it was assented by the president of india but the amended section 16 was put into operation only with effect from 1st august, 1988 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-22-2003
Reported in : (2004)IIILLJ811Mad; (2004)3MLJ385
..... and liabilities were to be shared at 50% each. there was nothing mentioned with regard to workmen excepting that other rights of the parties will be governed by indian partnership act. ex. m-20 is the memorandum of settlement under section 12(3) of industrial disputes act. under the said settlement, it was agreed that mettur textiles private limited will continue the services of all the ..... award of the labour court only where there is mis-appreciation of evidence leading to perversity of the decision. but while doing so, the high court should record its reasons. 17. the above-referred judicial precedents of the supreme court are authorities to hold that the high court is not lacking in its power of judicial exercise to interfere with the ..... place to premises no.49, rajaji salai, madras. then, in quick succession, on 15.1.1983, mettur textiles private limited was taken as a partner and a circular to that effect was issued on 15.1.1983 stating that such partnership had come into existence even from 1.1.1983. on 16.3.1983, the management purports to have retired from the ..... decision, then it is for the high court under article 226 of the constitution of india to set right the said error by pointing out the said defects in the decision making process, as otherwise, the high court will be failing in its duty to exercise the jurisdiction where it is warranted thus resulting in miscarriage of justice.15. in m/s .....Tag this Judgment!
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 : 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!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-11-2003
Reported in : III(2003)BC24
..... . form-'a' issued by the registrar of firms under rule 5 framed under section 59 of the indian partnership act, 1932, annexed with the reply filed on behalf of the respondent further shows that from 1.4.1998 onwards smt. shakti bhakoo had been recorded as partner of the firm. a copy of the partnership deed dated 9.11.1995 (annexure-r.5) has also been placed ..... facts stated in the petition that quashing of the complaint dated 2.5.2000 and the summoning order dated 17.7.2000 have been sought on behalf of the petitioner primarily on the ground that the petitioner is only a sleeping partner in the partnership concern and was not actively engaged with the activities and business of the said firm and for that ..... .1. smt. shakti bhakoo, petitioner seeks quashing of the complaint dated 2.5.2000 (annexure-p.5) filed by the respondent under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the act) and the summoning order dated 17.7.2000 (annexure-p.6) passed by the judicial magistrate ist class, ludhiana and the subsequent proceedings taken therein.2. in order ..... . taking into account oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned judicial magistrate ist class, ludhiana summoned accused nos. 2 and 3 to face trial under section 138 of the act as per his order dated 17.7.2000. hence, this petition for quashing of the complaint and the summoning order.4. none appeared on behalf of the petitioner-accused at the time .....Tag this Judgment!