Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act 1932 section 17 rights and duties of partners Year: 2017 Page 1 of about 7 results (0.380 seconds)

Apr 27 2017 (HC)

Monojit Das Vs. Sujit Roy Chowdhury and Anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-27-2017

..... alleged expulsion of the petitioner from the firm is violative to clause 27 of the deed of partnership and section 33 of the indian partnership act, 1932; (vi) whether the partnership firm has been dissolved on delivery of notice dated 22.11.2016 of the petitioner issued under section 43 of the indian partnership act, 1932; (vii) whether the respondents are liable to pay the capital of the petitioner in the ..... registered. learned counsel tried to contend that the petitioner being a partner of the firm could not maintain ..... of the petition. (i) whether the respondents have violated the general duties of the partners in operation the business account of the firm, avoiding the petitioner, in violation of the clause 17 of the deed of partnership, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the account shall be operated by the partners jointly; (ii) whether the respondents have misappropriated funds from the business ..... the firm avoiding the petitioner; learned counsel for the respondents took a most worthless point based on section 69 of the partnership act. it enacts that unless the firm is registered and shown to be so in the register of firms a partner does not have a right to institute a suit against the firm or any other person. admittedly, the firm is not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 22 2017 (HC)

Chiranjilal Bajoria and Ors. Vs. Sudhir Jalan and Ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Sep-22-2017

..... from the bihar government on the accounts being settled and upon discharge of the liabilities. this relief is based on section 46 of the indian partnership act, 1932. it is submitted that section 46 recognised that even a representative of the deceased partners will have the right to have the property of the firm applied in payment of the debts and liabilities of the firm and to have ..... . in the absence of any contract to the contrary, partners are entitled to share equally the profits and must contribute equally to the losses of the partnership. section 17 of the partnership act gives general rules for the determination of the rights and duties of the partners after the happening of events which would otherwise leave these rights and duties undetermined. the right and/or the option conferred by the provisions of ..... section 37 on the estate of the deceased partner cannot be properly exercised until the account of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 2017 (HC)

A.G. Sekaran Vs. M/s. Essaargee Fibro Industries and Others

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-03-2017

..... as the erstwhile partner of the first defendant firm and the same is also indicated in the letter of promise, the suit is maintainable and not barred under section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 and in this connection, he relied on the decision reported in(2004) 13 scc 358 (bhartesh chandra jain vs. shoiab ullah and others). however, as rightly put forth by ..... suit is not maintainable, in the light of the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932. 6. admittedly, the first defendant firm is an unregistered firm. therefore, it could be seen that as per section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the suit is not maintainable against the first defendant firm and its partners. the plaintiff, on becoming aware of the defence taken by ..... the defendants 1 to 3 on the question of the maintainability of the suit under section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, it appears, had given up his claim ..... suit has been laid by the plaintiff arising out of the said promise i.e. contract / right conferred by the indian partnership act, 1932 and in such view of the matter, it is found that the lis laid by the plaintiff is barred by section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932. 11. on facts, as adverted to earlier, the claim of the plaintiff that he has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 27 2017 (HC)

Narender Kumar Gupta vs.alka Gupta

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Oct-27-2017

..... the judgment and decree on the basis of an unregistered partnership deed contrary to the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act, which completely bar the filing of the suit as being not maintainable; the indian partnership act is mandatory in character and its effect is to render a suit by a partner in respect of a right vested in him or required by him under a contract ..... whether existing or dissolved, as void; that partner of an that section 69 of rfa66/2007 page 4of 10 unregistered partnership firm cannot bring a suit to enforce a right arising out of a contract following under the ambit of section 69 of the indian partnership act; that the partnership itself is not sustainable in the eyes of the law as the respondent is a ..... which he entered into as a partner of an unregistered firm ..... material concealment by not averting that there is an arbitration clause 12 in the unregistered partnership agreement dated 05.04.2000; that the trial court has ignored the material fact that the suit of the appellant was decreed as compromised on 16.10.2004 and till 17.01.2006 when the present suit for recovery of money was filed no grievance was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 17 2017 (HC)

Suraj Deo Parsad vs.prem Lata

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jul-17-2017

..... suit to be barred by section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 as the alleged partnership firm was unregistered. the ld. trial court examined the appellant s case on merits and held that the alleged partnership deed does not bear the signatures of the respondent. the ld. trial court further held that the tehbazari rights cannot be let out or ..... been received and seen by the court.6. there is no merit in this appeal. the appellant s prayer for possession is clearly barred by section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932. there is no infirmity in the finding of trial court that ex.pwdoes not bear the signature of the respondent. the finding of the trial ..... which was converted into a suit for possession. it is submitted that the suit for mandatory and permanent injunction was not hit by section 69 of the rfa4332017 page 2 of 3 indian partnership act, 1932 and, therefore, the subsequent amendment of the suit would not bar the prayer of possession. it is further submitted that the ..... in the letter dated 27th march, 2003 issued by municipal corporation of delhi in favour of the respondent. the appellant claims to have entered into a partnership with the respondent on 05th may, 2003 according to which each party would be entitled to 50% share in the profits and losses. the appellant claims ..... $~21 * % + date of decision:17. h july, 2017 ..... appellant rfa4332017 suraj deo parsad through: mr. jagdish singh rajput, adv. versus prem lata through: none. ..... respondent coram: hon'ble mr. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 2017 (HC)

M/S Shankar Wines Vs. The Commissioner of Excise

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-22-2017

..... that the licence granted is not exclusively to a legal entity, but in favour of the partners though it is given in the name of the firm. he refers to section 17-a, 13, 14 and 42 of the indian partnership act and order 30 of cpc. reliance is placed on the judgments of the apex court the ..... person belonging to scheduled castes or scheduled tribes)]. or cl-9 (refreshment (bar) licence under the karnataka excise (sale of indian and foreign liquors) rules, 1968; or (ii) the karnataka excise (lease of right of retail vend of beer) rules, 1976; the deputy commissioner may on an application by the licensee and [subject to ..... . the commissioner of excise and anr. 15 to carry on the business as is merely a camouflage for someone else there was no running fundamental right trade or business in liquor and the state had the power to effectively regulate the various activities relating to intoxicants as observed by the supreme court ..... equivalent to twice of the annual licence fee as specified in rule 8 of the karnataka excise (sale of indian and foreign liquors) rules, 1968 or rule 5 of the karnataka excise (lease of right of retail vend of beer) rules, 1976, as the case may be and upon such payment of transfer ..... of transfer fee equivalent to twice the annual licence fee]. specified in rule 8 of the karnataka excise (sale of indian and foreign liquors) rules, 1968 or rule 5 of the karnataka excise (lease of right of retail vend of beer, rules, 1976, as the case may be, and with the prior approval of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 05 2017 (HC)

Sesa International Limited Vs. Avani Projects and Infrastructure Limit ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Sep-05-2017

..... question is whether a single venture agreement can be a partnership. section 8 of the indian partnership act deals with such a situation. section 8 makes it clear that a person may become a partner with any person in particular adventure or undertaking. therefore, the term business, which has been used in section 4 of the said indian partnership act, may consist of even a single commercial adventure on which ..... of defendant no.2 alone during the currency of the agreement. the above joint development agreement is treated in law as partnership and sections 8, 14 and 15 of the partnership act, 1932 are applicable. consequently the leasehold property is liable for debts of the partnership. mr.mitra refers to clauses 10a, 11, 12 and 13 of the joint development agreement (in short jda ) to ..... in nature. the need for such protection, however, has to be judged against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from exercising his own legal rights. the court must weigh one need against another and determine where the balance of convenience lies and may pass an appropriate order in exercise of its discretionary power. (see. ..... , sr.adv., mr.anirban kr. ray, adv.for reliance commercial finance : mr.tilak kr. bose, sr.adv., mr.ravi kapur, adv., mr.a.kanodia, adv.hearing concluded on : 17.08.2017 judgment on : 5th september, 2017 soumen sen, j:- s.k.kapoor, sr.adv., ranjan bachawat, sr.adv., vikas tewary, adv.sanket saraogi, adv.the three applications filed by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2017 (HC)

The Tabocco Institute of India Vs. Union of India

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-15-2017

..... in w.p.nos.103797 & 103977/2016: between:1. mangalore ganesh beedi work, rep. by gopinath shenoy, a registered partnership firm, duly registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 and having its head office at vinoba road, mysore-570005. and having its depot/trading centre at m/s shree jagannath traders, ..... of cigarettes or other tobacco products which, according to the petitioners, are not true and therefore, printing these warnings affect their right to advertise under section 5 and to carry on business under article 19(1)(g). before answering the same, it must be noted that in these ..... eliminate direct or indirect advertising or sponsorship concerning tobacco, it is clear that parliament intends to protect public health in discharge of the duty and obligation cast by article 47 of the constitution on the state and particularly in the light of the object of the legislation ..... with sri aditya singh & s.r.dodawad, advs.) in w.p.no.34193/2016: between:1. ishwar snuff works, a partnership firm, (through its partner tusharbhai jasvantrai mehta), aged54years, male, having office at near jogiwad ni tanki, ranika, bhavnagar - 364 001. 36 2. m/s ranchhoddas zinabhai dholakia ..... welfare, rep. by its secretary nirman bhavan, new delhi11001.3. ministry of commerce and industry, rep. by its secretary, udyog bhawan, new delhi-110007. 17 4. ministry of consumer affairs, food & public distribution. rep. by its secretary, krishi bhawan. new delhi.110114. ..respondents (by sri krishna s.dixit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 07 2017 (HC)

Smt Rani Kapoor vs.m/s Silvermount

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jul-07-2017

..... for the petitioner challenging issue of summons in the complaint to the petitioner is that admittedly the respondent is an unregistered partnership firm and an unregistered partnership firm is not entitled to enforce its rights through contract as per section 69 of the indian partnership act. hence the complaint against the petitioner is not maintainable and is liable to be set aside.4. on the issue whether ..... the respondent that filing of a criminal complaint by a partner of an unregistered firm is hit by section 69(2) of the partnership act cannot be accepted. the said section has no application to the criminal cases. under these circumstances it could be said that section 69(2) of the partnership act is applicable only where the civil rights are invoked and not in criminal cases. non- registration ..... by the trial court by relying on the decision of the andhra pradesh high court referred to above is incorrect. whenever a complaint is presented under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act it is the duty of the learned magistrate to take note of the cognizance and record the sworn statement of the complainant and his witnesses and after hearing if there .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 24 2017 (HC)

Sri. K. G. Nanjundaiah Vs. Sri. P. C. Rajanna

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-24-2017

..... passed by the trial court holding that the suit is not maintainable in view of arbitration clause 17 of the partnership deed and referring the matter to the arbitration under section 8 of 9 the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case?. 11. i have given my ..... to the petitioner/plaintiff and respondent no.3/defendant no.3. accordingly, they constituted a partnership firm under the name and style m/s.sri siddalingeswahra rice mill on 27.03.1989 as per the provisions of indian partnership act, which was duly registered with the registrar of firms.3. it is the further ..... town 561 203.3. sri.h.v.somanath 4. m/s.sri.siddalingeshwara rice mill no.1971, main road doddaballapura 561 203 represented by its partners sri.p.c.rajanna & h.v.somanath respondents ((by sri.m.r.narayan, advocate) this writ petition is filed under article 227 of the constitution ..... been pending for a considerable time and a defendant has been contesting such supplemental proceedings, it cannot be said that the defendant has lost the right to seek reference to arbitration. at the relevant time, the unamended rule 1 of order viii of the code was governing the filing of written ..... and say that the parties should be referred to arbitration in view of the existence of an arbitration agreement. whether a party has waived his right to seek arbitration and subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the court, depends upon 14 the conduct of such party in the suit. when plaintiffs .....

Tag this Judgment!


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