Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act 1932 section 17 rights and duties of partners Year: 2016 Page 1 of about 11 results (0.150 seconds)

Mar 04 2016 (HC)

N. Renuka Devi Vs. E. Lalitha and Another

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-04-2016

..... mean and include their respective heirs, administrators, executors, legal representatives and assigns of the one part and lakshmi builders, a partnership firm, registered under the indian partnership act and having its office at 625, mount road, madras-6 and represented herein by its partner... p.g.saranyan, hereinafter referred to as the "confirming party", which expression shall wherever in the context require mean and ..... scc 328), the said provision does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the hon'ble judges who decided the matter. 17. it is well settled that section 3(1) of the limitation act casts a duty upon the court to dismiss a suit or an appeal or an application, if made after the prescribed period, although, limitation is not ..... form between the said nainamalai and the fourth defendant. when there is no marriage, the fourth defendant can be only a concubine of the said nainamalai. section 16 of the said act do not deal with the rights of the children through the concubinage. .. ... 25. even in considering this argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellant, it has to ..... description of applicationperiod of limitationtime from which period begins to run137. any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this division.three yearswhen the right to apply accrues 51. though the learned counsel appearing on both sides relied on various decisions as extracted in the earlier part of this judgment, including the point of .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 2016 (HC)

N. Marappan and Another Vs. V.S.T. Sengottaian and Others

Court : Chennai

Decided on : May-11-2016

..... in accordance with the provisions of the registration act, 1908. 17. section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 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 a behalf of any persons suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person ..... firm which was the subject matter of dissolution was noted as rs.3,00,000/- and the net value of the assets of the partnership firm was shown as rs.3,00,000/-. if it was so, stamp duty that should have been paid as per article 46b(i) on the basis of the dissolution deed involving partition of immovable property is ..... the same as an instrument of partition. an instrument between the partners dividing the outstanding of the partnership without dissolving the partnership shall be construed to be a partition deed and not a deed of dissolution of partnership and that such instrument attracts stamp duty under article 45 of schedule i of the indian stamp act, 1899. it has been held so by the bombay high court ..... are family members. if the dissolution involves partition of immovable properties of the firm among the partners who are not family members it attracts a higher stamp duty under article 46b(1). 47. as per section 6 of the indian stamp act, 1899, when an instrument has been so framed to come within two or more of the descriptions in schedule i and the stamp .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 2016 (HC)

Wind World (India) Limited and Others Vs. Enercon GmbH and Another

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-29-2016

..... unauthorized action, wrongful business decisions or misconduct of the other partners. the provisions of indian partnership act, 1932 cannot be extended to such limited liability partnerships. in my view the majority arbitrators thus could not have applied the provisions and/or principles of indian partnerships act, 1932 to those four limited liability partnerships formed and registered under the provisions of limited liability partnerships act, 2008 and to a private limited company. 77. in ..... of the arbitral tribunal did not bind the arbitral tribunal in any way at the stage of considering an application filed by the respondents under section 17 on merits and that the same were without prejudice to all rights and contentions of the petitioners herein in the matter. he also invited my attention to the clarification issued by the arbitral tribunal vide their ..... other option but to file such undertaking however without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioners. the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 filed such undertaking on 27th december, 2015 which undertaking were extended till disposal of the said application filed by the respondents under section 17 of the said act. 22. learned senior counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 05 2016 (HC)

Neel Electro Techniques and Others Vs. Neelkanth Power Solutions and O ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : May-05-2016

..... neel electro techniques is a partnership firm duly registered under the indian partnership act,1932. the second appellant m/s. neel controls is also a partnership firm duly registered under the indian partnership act,1932. it is claimed in the plaint that though the first appellant firm was established on 11th february 1980 by one shri ravindra gamanlal mehta (third appellant), initially he was not a partner of the said firm ..... there can be only one source and one proprietor. therefore, the case made out by the respondents on the basis of the claim of hemant being a joint proprietor is rightly negatived by the learned single judge. 18. one of the main contentions raised by the respondents is based on the memorandum of understanding. we have perused the memorandum of ..... parties. he stated that the said hemant has invoked arbitration clause under the said memorandum of understanding and the petitions have been filed by him under sections 9 and 11 of the arbitration and conciliation act,1996. the learned senior counsel relied upon the decision of the court of appeal in the case of habib bank limited v. habib bank a ..... those of the appellants. the allegation is that respondents are trading upon the reputation and goodwill of the appellants. 17. notice of motion for injunction taken out by the appellants is contested by the respondents by contending that hemant being a partner of the second appellant which is the proprietor of the mark `neel' is entitled to use the same. secondly .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 2016 (HC)

Sai Accumulator Industries Sangamner, Through its Partner, Kacheshvar ...

Court : Mumbai Aurangabad

Decided on : Apr-22-2016

..... . amit desai (supra) that the complaint could not have been filed by unregistered partnership and the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused. 5. section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 ("partnership act" for short) deals with effect of non-registration of partnership firm. sub-section (2) of section 69 provides that no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf ..... ) where in respect of an industrial company, an inquiry under section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to under section 17 is under preparation for consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal under section 25 relating to an industrial company is pending, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the companies act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or any other law or ..... 30th november 1994). the complainant filed complaint on 5th january 1995. (b). on behalf of the complainant, pw-1 kacheshwar chavan was examined. he claimed to be one of the partners and claimed that he had the power of attorney to file complaint and to give evidence. complainant examined pw-2 pramod joshi from nagar urban co-operative bank to prove ..... when dispute on that count had been raised. the learned counsel for appellant relied on the case of abdul gafoor vs. abdurahiman, reported in 2000(3) all m.r. (journal) 17, and the case of gurcharan singh vs. state of u.p. and another, reported in 2002 cri. l.j. 3682 of allahabad high court. it is stated that in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 18 2016 (HC)

V.K.S. Transport Vs. The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Sup ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-18-2016

..... 6.7.2015 and the pan card which stood only in the name of the partnership firm. he pointed out that as per section 69a of the indian partnership act, 1932, it is not required that every time a new partner is inducted, fresh registration has to be applied and obtained, but suffice to send ..... in order to accept the same by the respondents and that the respondents have rightly rejected the same. for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any irregularity in rejecting the tender offered by the appellant partnership firm and no infirmity in the order of the learned single judge, confirming ..... respondents thought it fit not to consider the tender offered by the appellant partnership firm. further, the appellant has not impleaded the party to whom, the contract was awarded in order to know whether the respondents have rightly awarded the contract. if the appellant is so interested, it can participate ..... within thirty days from the date of closing such financial year. admittedly, the appellant firm has not filed any such declaration for its continuance right from its registration, with the registrar of firms. the purpose of insisting such declaration is to know exactly how many firms registered or functioning ..... through the entire materials placed before this court, we find considerable force in the contentions made by the learned additional advocate general, which rightly support the rejection of the tender by the respondents and as such, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 21 2016 (HC)

G. Sathyan Vs. B. Vasudevan and Another

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-21-2016

..... prospective buyer is found out. the learned arbitrator after analysing the terms of the contract and the relevant provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 held that the partnership assets of only two partners stood dissolved on the retirement of one of the partners in the light of the legal and factual position stated therein. 10. the hon'ble supreme court in sail gupta ..... including the non-adherence of the memorandum of understanding by both the parties, directed the assets to be sold in auction between the partners after dissolution of the firm under sections 46 and 48 of the indian partnership act. therefore, the above contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is not sustainable and the said decision is also not applicable ..... him passed the award, dated 06.07.2011, thereby winding up the partnership firm and to settle the accounts of the firm between the parties in terms of sections 46 and 48 of the indian partnership act, 1932. the learned arbitrator has further ordered that the assets of the partnership firm is to be sold to the highest bidder in the auction to ..... set aside on this ground. 8. clause 17 of the partnership deed reads thus: "17. the retirement, discontinuance or death or any of the partners shall not dissolve the partnership or cause discontinuance of the said business and the remaining of surviving partners shall be entitled to continue the business subject to the rights of the outgoing partners and adjustment of accounts." 9. in this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 2016 (HC)

M/s. Amritlakshmi Machine Works and Another Vs. The Commissioner of Cu ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-29-2016

..... . it is made clear that the issue posed before us was only in respect of a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act 1932. we have not in any manner dealt with partnership firm registered under the limited liability partnership act, 2008 and the liability of its partners under section 112(a) of the act. 42. this reference is disposed of in above terms. no order as to costs. ( ..... of the revenue it is contended that the division bench in textoplast industries (supra) has rightly applied the deeming fiction under section 140 of the act to come to a conclusion that simultaneous penalties can be imposed on the partnership firm and the partners under section 112(a) of the act, in applying the principles as laid down by the supreme court in the standard chartered bank ..... owner of the goods or any person holding himself out to be an importer. thus, the bill of entry is filed by the importer under section 46 of the act and the same is assessed to duty under section 17 of the act by a proper officer of the customs after being satisfied that the goods being imported, are not prohibited goods liable for confiscation under ..... law, the doctrine of vicarious liability is unknown and if a director is to be punished for something of which he is not actually guilty, it would violate his fundamental right as enshrined in article 21 of the constitution. it was urged that on account of advancement in science and technology, most of the companies, appoint professionally qualified men to run .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 19 2016 (HC)

D. Balan Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

Decided on : Dec-19-2016

..... be construed to be a conveyance deed. under the indian partnership act, 1932 all the properties are vested with the firm and they cannot be construed to be personal property of the individual partners. section 55.d(ii) of the indian stamp act, 1899 deals with the release of right in favour of a partner, when such release is between the partners who are not family members. as per the recitals ..... imagination, can take into account the market value of the property, since the amount referred to in the release deed is the decisive factor for the purpose of calculating stamp duty. 7. in this background, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the hon'ble division bench of this court reported in 1994-1-l.w.317 ..... support of the position which we have joharmaly v.tejkam jaglup,(1893) ilr 17 bom 235 which was decide by jardine and telang, jj.the latter took the view that though a partners' share does not include any specific part of any specific item of partnership is entitled to immovable property,such share does not include in interest in immovable property ..... opinion of jardine j.,in jaharmal's case,(1883) ilr 17 bom 235 held that an unregistered deed of release by a partner of his share in the partnership business is admissible in evidence, even where the partnership owns immovable property.the learned may be co-owner in the partnership property he has no right to ask for a share in the property but only that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 25 2016 (HC)

Rashmi Nagrath vs.m/s Sarva Priya House bldg.socy. Ltd

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-25-2016

..... a firm in the definition of person? as distinct from an individual [section 2(31)(i) or a body of individuals section 2(31)(v)].. firm?, partner? and partnership? have been defined in section 2(23) to have the same meaning as assigned to them in the indian partnership act, 1932.17. sections 14 and 15 of the indian partnership act, 1932 contemplate the owning of property by a firm. this includes the property originally ..... appellant.22. we may look at the legal position regarding an immovable property owned by a partnership firm. sections 14 and 15 of the indian partnership act reads as follows:-"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, by ..... company continued to carry on business six months after the number of its members was reduced below the legal minimum; in certain matters pertaining to the law of taxes, death duties and stamps, particularly where the question of the "controlling interest" is in issue; in the law relating to exchange control; and in the law relating to trading lpa nos. ..... is accepted then it would mean that a person may hold a property in the name of partnership and yet acquire a plot through co-operative society defeating the very purpose of the rules and regulations. it further noted that it was the duty of the court where on account of ingenuity an attempt was made to defeat the purpose of .....

Tag this Judgment!

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