Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act 1932 section 17 rights and duties of partners Year: 2006 Page 1 of about 18 results (0.221 seconds)

Dec 12 2006 (SC)

Shreedhar Govind Kamerkar Vs. Yesahwant Govind Kamerkar and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-12-2006

Reported in : 2007(3)BomCR1010; 2006(14)SCALE174; 2007(1)LC0054(SC)

..... available on records. 15. what forms the property of the firm is stated in section 14 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (for short, 'the act'). it reads as under:14. the property of the firm.- subject to contract between the partners, the property of the firm includes all property and rights and interests in property originally brought into the stock of the firm, or acquired, ..... its discretionary jurisdiction under article 136 of the constitution of india.2. having regard to the provisions contained in section 17 of the partnership act, the suit was not barred by limitation.3. no question as regards applicability of section 15 of the bombay act having been raised in the written statement, nor any issue having been framed in that behalf, the same should ..... the statute apparently forbids'. thus, in brown v. duncan, it was held that a partnership of distillers was not illegal, even though one partner carried on business as a retail dealer in spirits within two miles of the distillery (contrary to the duties on sprits act 1823, sections 132, 133) and was not registered as a member of the firm in the excise ..... view to determine the said question, we may notice some other provisions of the act as well.17. rights and duties of partners. - subject to contract between the partners -after a change in the firm(a) - where a change occurs in the constitution of a firm, the mutual rights and duties of the partners in the reconstituted firm remain the same as they were immediately before the change .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 2006 (HC)

Vemuri Lakshmi Nageswara Rao and anr. Vs. Joint Collector and Addition ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-16-2006

Reported in : 2006(3)ALD317

..... firm. such property shall have to be used by the partners exclusively for the purpose of business. section 17 of partnership act adumbrates the rights and duties of the partners. it is to the effect that (a) where a change occurs in the constitution of a firm, the mutual rights and duties of the partners in the reconstituted firm remain the same as they were ..... lawful and therefore by transferring the licence, the first respondent has violated rule 11-b(2) of the rules. to appreciate this contention, a reference to some of the provisions of the partnership act has ..... renewed improperly without an affidavit and therefore, the impugned order is vitiated by improper procedure adopted by the first respondent. the learned counsel placed reliance on various provisions of the partnership act, 1932, as well as the decisions reported in m.c. chockalingam v. v. manickavasagam : [1974]2scr143 , koratani suramma v. government of a.p. 1982 (1) alt ..... alone has apparent control over the immovable property? whether there is unity of ownership among the partners with regard to the possession as well? these questions have to be answered necessarily by referring to the indian partnership act, 1932 (the partnership act, for brevity).32. as contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, the possession of the third respondent is not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 26 2006 (HC)

Adamji Lookmanji and Co. and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-26-2006

Reported in : AIR2007Bom56; 2007(1)ALLMR785; 2007(3)BomCR447

..... order1. the petitioners have challenged orders dated 25th april, 2005 and 12th october. 2004, passed by the registrar of firms, maharashtra state, mumbai under section 69-a of the indian partnership act, 1932, in terms of maharashtra amendment act, 29 of 1984 (for short 'mah. state amendment') by which a retrospective penalty of rs. 1,03,680/- has been levied for non-intimation of alterations in ..... the partnership deeds dated 17-4-1972, 21-8-1975 and 18-10-19/9.2. petitioner no. 1 adamji lookmanji & co. (for short 'the firm') is a partnership firm ..... 8th december, 1982 and dated 1st december, 1999. respondent no. 2 is the registrar of firms who is exercising the powers, functions and duties under the indian partnership act. mr. adamji yahyabhai jasdanwala, a partner of the firm, now retired, shifted his residence on 17th april, 1972. petitioner no. 2 shifted his residence on 21st august, 1975. mr. abbas jasdanwala, now retired, also shifted ..... had complied with the said requisition on 17th may, 2002.3. on 26th august, 2004, respondent no. 2 intimated to the petitioners about the delay of 17,280 days as per section 62-a of the act, in filing form 'd' and therefore called upon them to show cause why penalty of rs. 1,72,800/- should not be levied. the petitioner made .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 2006 (HC)

Tetali Chinna Krishna Reddy Vs. Konala Nagalakshmi and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-28-2006

Reported in : 2006(4)ALD596; 2006(3)ARBLR575(AP)

..... . the dispute, which is not permissible to be raised by the partners under clause 17 cannot be allowed to be determined by the arbitrators in the guise of clause 22. further, the learned counsel also drawn the attention of this court to section 44 of the indian partnership act and submitted that in spite of there being a negative recital as to claiming dissolution, since ..... specifically provided for in this deed, the provisions of indian partnership act, 1932 for the time being in force shall apply.12. it is also necessary to notice sections 8, 11 and 16 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 as well as section 44 of the indian partnership act, 1932. sections 8, 11 and 16 of the arbitration act reads as under:section 8: power to refer parties to arbitration where there ..... the suit may be brought as well by the next friend of the partner who has become of unsound mind as by any other partner;(b) that a partner, other than the partner suing, has become in any way permanently incapable of performing his duties as partner;(c) that a partner, other than the partner suing, is guilty of conduct which is likely to affect prejudicially the ..... adjudicated upon and decided by arbitrators chosen by the parties to the said partnership deed.6. whereas it is the case of the plaintiff that as a partner of m/s priyanka poultry farm, under law, he got every right to approach the civil court for dissolution of the partnership firm and for other remedies. the plea that the proceedings have to be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 03 2006 (HC)

Ess Vee Traders and ors. Vs. Ambuja Cement Rajasthan Limited

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jul-03-2006

Reported in : 2006(3)ARBLR152(Delhi); IV(2006)BC289; 131(2006)DLT341; 2006(90)DRJ293

..... , so much as is relevant for the present proceedings, reads as under: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 a partner in a firm ..... the partners having signed and verified the present petition. however, the key question is whether the petition is maintainable in view of the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932.4. first of all, the issue is whether the present proceedings under section 11(6) of the said act could be said to be covered by the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932. section 69 of the indian partnership act ..... the dishonour of the cheque, there was no subsisting dispute between the parties. the respondent apparently filed a complaint under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881. those proceedings are pending before the metropolitan magistrate. the respondent had filed the complaint on 17.10.2000. much later, on 03.03.2003, the petitioner no. 1 sent a legal notice to the respondent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 2006 (HC)

Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. P.P. Industries

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-30-2006

Reported in : AIR2006Raj168

..... has not presented the suit?8. whether the plaintiff firm is not registered under the provisions of the partnership act and no certificate was produced showing the names of the partners with the documents produced by the plaintiff firm?9. whether the rajasthan state electricity board which is a body ..... person. it was also stated that the plaintiff firm has neither been lawfully registered under the provisions of the partnership act nor any certificate showing the names of the partners was produced. it was further stated that the rajasthan state electricity board is a body corporate and as per ..... on proper evidence and reasonings.17. i have considered the submissions made before me.18. to resolve the controversy involved in the matter, it shall be useful to reproduce the relevant provisions of indian electricity act, which require consideration in the present matter. section 26(1) of the electricity act reads as under:26. ..... declaration and permanent injunction was decreed with cost by order dated 4-10-1999 and it was ordered that the defendant-appellant has no right to recover the amount of the disputed bill amounting to rs. 1,58,700.64 as the said amount is not reasonably due ..... act, once the meter is referred to the electric inspector then a bill is not required to be sent to the consumer on the basis of assessment made by the departmental authorities as it can be done only after the report received from the electrical inspector.20. it is not in dispute before me that it is the duty .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2006 (SC)

M.V. Karunakaran Vs. Krishanan (Dead) by Lrs.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-15-2006

Reported in : AIR2007SC1501; 2007(3)ALD39(SC); 2007(2)AWC1145(SC); 2007(1)KLT243(SC); (2007)147PLR247; 2006(14)SCALE7; 2007AIRSCW2027; 2007(3)CivilLJ685; 2007(3)AIRKarR350(SC)

..... is dissolved or if the transferring partner ceases to be a partner thereof. the right the respective purchaser from the erstwhile partner of dissolved partnership, therefore, was required to be ..... thereof determines the right of a transferee if the firm ..... was the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor in the property. the right of the auction purchaser, if any, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, could not have been determined in such a proceeding. section 29 of the indian partnership act, 1932 states as to what would be the interest of transferee of a partner. sub-section (2) ..... representatives, therefore, could transfer the property at least to the extent of their own share. a distinction exists between the right of a partner to sell a property during subsistence of the partnership and the right of an erstwhile partner to sell the property of the firm after it stood dissolved.6. it has been found as of fact by all .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 2006 (HC)

Om Prakash Vs. Gordhan and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-29-2006

Reported in : 2006(2)MPLJ497

..... was issued with regard to retirement of the appellant from the firm.section 45 of the indian partnership act, 1932 reads as under with regard to liability of partners:45. liability for acts of partner done after dissolution.- (1) notwithstanding the dissolution of a firm, the partners continue to be liable as such a third parties for any act done by any of them which would have been an ..... act of the firm if done before the dissolution, until public notice is given ..... , the previous law on the subject and the mischief which the statute intended to cure should be looked into. under the law as it stood prior to the indian partnership act, an active partner who had retired from a firm could continue to remain liable for the debts contracted subsequently by the continuing firm unless those who had previous dealings with the firm ..... to the registrar, there is no public notice contemplated in sections 45(1) and 72 of the partnership act. in the circumstances the retirement of the second defendant, even if it be true, cannot affect the rights of the plaintiff bank who is a third party in view of section 32(3) of the partnership act.13. the division bench of gujarat high court in jani .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 07 2006 (SC)

Purushottam and anr. Vs. Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-07-2006

Reported in : 2007(1)AWC878(SC); 2006(2)CTLJ269(SC); JT2007(4)SC564; (2007)1MLJ623(SC); 2006(12)SCALE232; 2006AIRSCW5898

..... the provisions of the partnership act and consequently or even otherwise, the persons suing are not shown in the register of firms as partners of the firm, on the date of the suit. (ii) such unregistered firm or the partners mentioned in the sub-section must be suing the defendant-third party. (iii) such a suit must be for enforcement of a right arising from a ..... 1988 by its impugned judgment and order of april 10, 1992 allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit holding that in view of the provisions of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), the suit was not maintainable, the plaintiff being an unregistered firm.2. the facts of the case are not in dispute and they will be ..... its report which was considered by the legislature while enacting the partnership act, 1932. the committee recommended that registration of firms be made optional as it considered making registration compulsory too drastic for a beginning in india. it was proposed that registration should lie entirely with the discretion of the firm or partner concerned, but any firm which was not registered will be unable ..... the plaintiff firm in the course of the business dealings of the plaintiff firm with such third party defendant.17. with respect, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the principles enunciated in haldiram bhujiawala and anr. (supra). having regard to the purpose section 69(2) seeks to achieve and the interest sought to be protected, the bar must apply to a .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 2006 (HC)

Mr. Diljeet Titus, Advocate Vs. Mr. Alfred A. Adebare and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-08-2006

Reported in : 130(2006)DLT330; 2006(32)PTC609(Del)

..... defendants. in this behalf learned counsel referred to section 6 of the indian partnership act, 1932 which provides for a mode of determining existence of partnership and reads as under: 6. mode of determining existence of partnership ' in determining whether a group of persons is or is not a firm or whether a person is or is not a partner in a firm, regard shall be had to ..... ) relates to the standard of professional conduct and etiquette to be observed by the advocates. rule 17 falls in section (ii) dealing with duty to clients and provides 'an advocate shall not, directly or indirectly commit, a breach of the obligations imposed by section 126 of the evidence act'. since the documents generated by the plaintiff during rendering of professional services to its clients are ..... the whole exercise.70. if an associate or an advocate whatever be the terminology by which it is called works for another advocate and his clients he certainly owes a duty and obligation not only to maintain the confidentiality between the client and his advocate but also not to surreptitiously take away what is the final product of the effort put ..... to the detriment of the plaintiff, information to which he had access in the course of service. it was observed on page 17 as under: .i think it right to say, lest it should be thought that the judges countenanced such acts, that it must not be assumed that such conduct was honest or legal; nor could i sit by and allow it .....

Tag this Judgment!


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