Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Jun-25-2005
Reported in : AIR2006Jhar24; 2005(3)BLJR1709; [2005(3)JCR416(Jhr)]
..... (in m.s. no. 40/87) with respect to contract nos. 5 and 6 of 1978 as barred under section 30, rule 2 read with section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, apart from evidences oral and documentary, which have been discussed in detail by the court below.11. so far as the relief granted in respect to contract nos. 4 and ..... the firm, is found to be based on legal aspect. the registration of a partnership firm before the registrar of firm is conditions precedent for filing a suit by a partnership firm or by any of its partner on behalf of the firms under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act. as such, i find no illegality in deciding this issue by the court ..... the work done and completed by the plaintiffs (appellants). it is well settled that the recovery of amount advanced to any borrower comes under the domain of public demand recovery act, and therefore, the banking institution, dealing with the public money, cannot be injuncted from realizing the same through the process of law by any order in suit out of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Feb-23-2005
Reported in : [2005(2)JCR359a(Jhr)]
..... has been deposited and no opportunity was given to the petitioners to explain circumstances. further, since petitioners have already resigned from the partnership of the firm and ingredients of offence registered under sections 406, 409, 420 and 120-b, ipc are lacking, it will be an abuse of the process of the court if trial is allowed to continue.9. in that ..... out that no case under section 406 and other sections is made out as petitioners are not responsible for depositing the contribution under the e.p.f. and m.p. act as petitioners are neither the persons in-charge responsible for the financial affairs of the company nor at any point of time, contribution was deducted from the wages of the ..... given an opportunity to explain the position and the petitioners have wrongly been made an accused without verifying responsibility about non-compliance of any of the provisions of the said act or committing any default. it was further pointed out that amount towards contribution of the employers and employees for period from april 1996 to december 1999 has already been paid ..... the firm. it is further pointed out that immediately after resignation from the firm, these two petitioners immediately informed the concerned authorities of the e.p.f. and m.p. act (annexure-3). it was further pointed out that surprisingly enough the proprietor of m/s vikash founders pvt. ltd. has not been made an accused, rather the petitioner nos. 2 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Mar-02-2005
Reported in : [2005(3)JCR459(Jhr)]
..... singh and thereafter in this way licence was given to deo sharan singh on 27.11.1985, but due to old age he entered into a partnership with one shrimati leela devi, wife of complainant and her son-in-law ram pukar singh with whom the complainant was associated. the above licence ..... officer-in-charge of bistupur police station, jamshedpur, vide order dated 6.9.1994 for offences under sections 147, 148, 448, 342 and 323 of the indian penal code.3. cafeteria in question was given to one s.a. sanmugam pillai by a licence dated 1.12.1972 by the tisco limited and later ..... 82 (sc) : 2004 (2) supreme 757 wherein it has been held that case was filed under sections 341, 323, 325, 506 and 386/34, ipc and a petition to quash the proceeding was filed stating therein that this case is counter-blast to the earlier case filed in which o.p. no. 2 was ..... was filed after registration of bistupur p.s. case no. 306 of 1993 in which this complainant-respondent no. 2 was arrested and in all other acts this complainant-respondent no.2 took, such as filing of writ application before the high court, his production before the magistrate and filing of bail application for ..... guilty of committing offence as alleged. the first information report was lodged not against the complainant but with regard to the acts of increasing unlawful activities carried out at lake cafeteria as also the acts amounting to hurt, theft, criminal intimidation etc. committed by the complainant and his accomplices and competent court has held .....Tag this Judgment!