Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-20-2007
Reported in : 2007(4)ARBLR353(Delhi)
..... by the high court that the learned civil judge was wrong in rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint and in fact the respondent firm was registered under the indian partnership act, the question of throwing out the said suit on that ground would not arise. there cannot, however, be any doubt whatsoever that the firm must be registered at ..... . it is true that the arbitral proceedings would not be maintainable at the instance of an unregistered firm having regard to the mandatory provisions contained in section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932. it has been so held in jagdish chandra gupta v. kajaria traders (india) ltd. we may, however, notice that this court in firm ashok traders despite following ..... a dissolved firm, or any right or power to release property of a dissolved firm, was the exception carved out under sub-section (3) of section 69 of the indian partnership act. in saigal it was this exercise which was to be undertaken, and instead of filing a civil suit the parties have contractually agreed to enter into arbitration. thereforee, a ..... air2000sc2676 was applied erroneously. the following table is self explanatory so far as the claims proffered by the respondent unregistered partnership, which if allowed cannot but tantamount to removing the statutory embargo articulated in section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (for short 'partnership act), namely, that an unregistered firm is not competent to enforce a right emanating from a contract. if a suit .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-01-2007
Reported in : 2007(1)ARBLR288(Delhi); 137(2007)DLT401; 2007(95)DRJ55
..... to complete the transaction begun, but unfinished at the time of dissolution. this is so provided in section 47 of the indian partnership act, 1932. while dealing with section 47 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the hon'ble supreme court held that the word 'transaction' in section 47 refers not merely to commercial ..... to third parties to the fullest extent, for the debts and liabilities incurred prior to dissolution, and, subject to section 47 of the indian partnership act, 1932, in respect of liabilities incurred even thereafter. thereforee, merely to say that there are outstanding liabilities to the tune of rs. 50 ..... in the way of the arbitral tribunal in issuing interim direction of the kind that it did.20. section 48 of the indian partnership act, 1932 states that in settling the accounts of a firm after dissolution, various claims are to be settled in the order of ..... arbitral tribunal, primarily, on the ground that the said order is contrary to section 48 of the indian partnership act. the submission is that the claim before the arbitral tribunal is for dissolution of the partnership businesses between the parties and unless the accounts are taken and all the debts and liabilities of ..... the question that arises for consideration is; has the arbitral tribunal, while passing the interim directions, proceeded under section 48 of the indian partnership act, 193224. in my opinion, the answer is plainly in the negative. the stage for settlement of accounts has not yet arrived. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-22-2007
Reported in : 2007(2)ARBLR446(Delhi); 139(2007)DLT71; 2007(95)DRJ581
..... of the debts and liabilities of the firm, and to have the surplus distributed among the partners according to their rights. (section 46 of the indian partnership act). the mode of settlement of the accounts is prescribed under section 48 of the partnership act. it is these rights that a partner of a dissolved firm exercises, when he asks for rendition of accounts of the ..... from the other. 18. to my mind these communications on both sides constitute acknowledgment of liability to render accounts to the other within the meaning of section 18 of the partnership act. i may refer to the decision rendered in hukumat sing kundanmal v. nenumal rejhumal air 1928 sind 45, wherein it was held that where the plaintiff in a suit for ..... partnership business from the other partners. 14. to determine whether section 18 of the limitation act applies to the present case, one has to determine, whether the respondent ..... 32, 38 and 39 of the majority judgment.11. the parties agreed to dissolve the partnership w.e.f 27.3.2002. the period of limitation prescribed under the limitation act for filing a suit relating to accounts and share in the profits of a dissolved partnership firm is three years and the starting point of limitation is the date of dissolution (article .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Jun-29-2007
Reported in : (2007)(121)ECC173
..... a partner subsequent to the said period. the supreme court reiterated the ratio of the decision in malabar fisheries company v. cit , in which it was held: "....a partnership firm under the indian partnership act, 1932 is not a distinct legal entity apart from the partners constituting it and equally in law the firm as such has no separate right of its own in ..... decisions in support of his contentions:sharma chemicals v. cce 8.1 in his "overview of submissions" filed on 22.6.2007, it was contended that the provisions of the indian partnership act were not relevant and the issue had to be decided in the light of the provisions of the taxing statute. he argued that the central excise ..... partner would be liable jointly with all other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm, done while he is a partner, as provided by section 25 of the indian partnership act, 1932. as held by the supreme court in arunagiri chettiar (supra) ], section 25 of the partnership act does not make a distinction between a continuing partner and an erstwhile partner.every partner ..... is liable for all the acts of the firm done while he is a partner jointly along with other .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : DRAT Delhi
Decided on : Sep-28-2007
Reported in : I(2008)BC67
..... on behalf of the firm as well as for himself in his capacity as the defendant no. 2 and partner of the firm. as per section 18 of the indian partnership act, a partner is the agent of the firm for the purpose of the business of the firm. section 24 of the said ..... and not on the partner of the firm shall not be deemed to have been effected on the firm. i should say that it hardly needs any debate that a partnership firm can sue and be sued in its name. it would be recalled that in the oa in question, m/s. inrays was arrayed as defendant no. 1 and ..... . 2 was mr. b.s. kumar, defendant no. 3 was mrs.preet narula and the defendant no. 4 was mr. i.s. kumar. m/s. inrays was then a partnership firm and it is an undisputed fact that mr. b. s.kumar was one of its partners. defendant nos. 3 and 4 were mortgagors/guarantors. m/s. inrays is now ..... and is unable to contact the addressee or a person authorized to receive the letter. all that he can then do is to return it to the sender. the indian post office rules do not prescribe any detailed procedure regarding the delivery of such registered letters. when the postman is unable to deliver it on his first visit, the ..... no. 1 firm m/s. inrays. the liability of the partners of the firm is unlimited. to say in other words, partnership is not a juristic person and the liability of the partners in relation to a partnership firm stands as if on personal footing. i should make reference to a few very pertinent rulings dealing with the subject of service .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-03-2007
Reported in : LC2007(3)86; 2007(35)PTC365(Del)
..... contend that his right in the trade mark still remains. if such a contention of the defendant is accepted, it may lead to absurdities as after the dissolution of the partnership deed, the trade mark of the firm, as per the arrangement of the parties, would be used by one of the parties. if both are allowed to use the same ..... their representatives under this deed, then every such dispute, difference or question shall be referred to two arbitrators, appointed by all the parties and their empire pursuant to the indian arbitration act, 1940 or any statutory modification thereof for the time being in force.thus it is crystal clear that remedy is available which is not utilised by the respondent. respondent alone ..... v. gurbax singh 2001 ptc 629 del, it is held,6...admittedly the trade mark stands applied in the name of both persons as partners of the firm. it was partnership property. when by dissolution deed, rights and liabilities of the parties are determined and defendant agrees to give goodwill and all other rights in the said ..... partnership firm to the plaintiff, it will include the right in the trade mark of the partnership firm as well. between the two partners, there may not be necessity to execute a separate assignment deed once the dissolution deed .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-28-2007
Reported in : 2007(2)ARBLR133(Delhi); 141(2007)DLT822
..... . uoi. the apex court noticed that the expression 'joint venture' is more frequently used in united states, and that it connotes a legal entity in the nature of a partnership, engaged in the joint undertaking of a particular transaction for mutual profit, or an association of persons or companies jointly undertaking some commercial enterprise wherein all contribute assets and share ..... been pointed out that the respondent bearing in view the market position, had no option but to proceed with its proposal of setting up a wholly owned subsidiary without the partnership of the petitioner. towards this end, the respondent after requesting the petitioner for its consent, submitted an application dated 22nd july, 2006 to the fipb. this proposal has ..... business of ggl impacts the profits of respondent more than those of the petitioner.(vii). guardian finds itself unable to undertake any expansion in existing business of ggl in partnership with mrl because of the uncertainty and insecurity within mrl.(viii). any proposal to undertake expansion activities in the joint venture requires an approval of both guardian and mrl' ..... frustrated and did not bind the parties.98. frustration of contract is not an abstract or nebulous concept. in india, it is statutorily recognised in section 56 of the indian contract act which relates to performance of a contract. undoubtedly, frustration of contract is a class of circumstances under which performance of a contract is excused or dispensed with. section 56 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-15-2007
Reported in : I(2008)BC45; 140(2007)DLT465; 2007(95)DRJ533; (2008)149PLR27
..... ,086/- along with interest @ 24% p.a. w.e.f. 1.1.1999. the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the indian companies act and is carrying on the business of manufacture and supply of insecticides and pesticides and agro chemicals to its various customers. the plaintiff company also ..... needs specific mention:11. section 20, before the amendment of cpc in 1976, had two explanationns being explanationns i and ii. by the amendment act, explanationn i was omitted and explanationn ii was renumbered as the present explanationn. explanationn which was omitted reads as follows:explanation i.-where a person ..... if such a contract is clear, unambiguous and explicit and not vague, it is not hit by sections 23 and 28 of the contract act. this cannot be understood as parties contacting against the statute. mercantile law and practice permit such agreements.12. it could not be denied ..... were presented for encashment at new delhi, whereupon the said cheques got dishonoured and the proceedings under section 138 of the n.i. act were initiated and are pending before the court of metropolitan magistrate at new delhi. it is thus claimed that substantial cause of action has ..... extends credit to its customers varying from 60 to 70 days, from the date of actual supply for making payments for the goods supplied. the defendant no. 1 is a partnership .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-20-2007
Reported in : 2007(2)ARBLR434(Delhi); 139(2007)DLT142; 2007(95)DRJ489
..... single judge of this court in the case of messers. greenland foods pvt. ltd. v. union of india : air1973delhi157 . in respect of the provisions of section 20 of the indian arbitration act, 1940 it was held that the application so filed itself can be treated as an application for appointment of an arbitrator, if there has been no previous notice. similarly, in ..... filed an application under section 8 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said act) against the present respondent as respondent no. 1 and m/s prime international, a partnership firm, as respondent no. 2. the petition states that the petitioner is manufacturer/ exporter of high quality of indian sweets, salty and spicy mixture and pure asian vegetarian food ..... till such a procedure is followed, there can be no question of invocation of the jurisdiction of the chief justice of the high court under section 11 of the said act. the moot point is whether there is any such procedure envisaged under the present arbitration agreement. the various judgments referred to clearly had arbitration clauses where either one party had ..... referred to in sub-section (2), in an arbitration with three arbitrators, each party shall appoint one arbitrator, and the two appointed arbitrators shall appoint the third arbitrator who shall act as the presiding arbitrator.(4) if the appointment procedure in sub-section (3) applies and-(a) a party fails to appoint an arbitrator within thirty days from the receipt of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-16-2007
Reported in : 142(2007)DLT342
..... judgment in ashoka marketing (supra) by making a reference to the language of section 14 of the delhi rent control act, 1958 and by also making reference to section 69 of the partnership act, 1932. we do not find any merit in the said contention. the phrases and words of section 14 of ..... the delhi rent control act, 1958 are much broader, wider and more comprehensive than sections 5 and 8 of the arbitration and conciliation act. we also feel that ..... india (the venue of arbitration being new delhi), whose decision shall be final, conclusive and binding upon the parties and to the provision of indian arbitration act, 1940 shall apply. reference to arbitration as above shall be made within 6 months of the arising of the rides to refer to arbitration. the ..... , then in terms of the second principle mentioned above, clause 27 will apply.33. it cannot be said that proceedings under the pp act and arbitration act for the same dispute can be resorted to and permitted under the license deed. no such argument was in fact raised. it is also ..... occupation in premises belonging to government, public companies and corporations controlled and owned by the central government. same reasoning will equally apply to pp act and arbitration and conciliation act.38. relying upon this judgment, a learned single judge of this court in c.j. international hotels ltd. v. new delhi municipal .....Tag this Judgment!