Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: jharkhand Year: 2006 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.016 seconds)

Jun 20 2006 (HC)

Dulal Chakraborty Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr.

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Jun-20-2006

Reported in : II(2007)BC166

..... whereas the opposite party no. 2-complainant was the first party and that share in the business would be fifty-fifty.3. in terms of the partnership deed it is alleged that the second party reqaested the first party/opposite party no. 2 from time to time to invest capital and pursuant to that ..... the cheques of rs. 1,90,000/- was issued on 5.3.2004 which were presented hy the opposite party no. 2 but dishonoured by the indian overseas bank and advice in respect of the dishonour of the cheques were issued. the complaint petition is silent as to on which date cheques were presented ..... after finding a prima facie case took cognisance of the offence under section 138 ol the said act against the petitioner herein in the complaint filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2/first party of the partnership deed5. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is fit to be ..... dated 5.3.2004 rs. 1,90,000/- chaitali dutta(first party)4. all the three cheques were presented by the opposite party no. 2 in indian overseas bank, ranchi but all three were dishonoured and returned to the opposite party no. 2 with the advice that there was no sufficient fund in the account ..... for repayment of the said amount of rs. 2,61,500/- the second party-petitioner issued three cheques in the manner stated below drawn on his bankers, indian overseas bank, ranchi and handed over the same to the first party-opposite party. 2.cheque no & date amount payee of the cheque991342, datcd 5.4. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 2006 (HC)

Smt. Saraswati Singh @ Saraswati Sinha and Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Brij S ...

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Sep-14-2006

Reported in : AIR2007Jhar49; [2007(1)JCR208(Jhr)]

..... to rajeshwar singh. there was no business in the joint family much less the transport business in the name and style of 'singh transport'. it was a partnership business and was noticed, as such, in the court of the district judge, high court, income tax department, transport department etc. there is no such ..... business of stage coaches, private and public lorries, transport and hotel at ranchi and elsewhere. he had earned and accumulated considerable wealth. as desired by the indian national congress, ram binod singh, who was then an m.l.a. converted the joint family business in the name and style of singh brothers (pvt.) ..... sri s.k. puri, patna'. in the body of the plaint in paragraph 12, it has been pleaded that the defendant no. l began to act improperly and selfishly and the plaintiff later on came to know that the defendant no. l managed to acquire land at patna and a property at defence ..... ornaments, jewellery and silver wares. taking undue advantage of the condition of the father, after the mother's death, the defendant no. l began to act improperly and selfishly and managed to acquire a plot of land at patna and a property at defence colony, new delhi out of the joint family fund ..... the trial court.5. plaintiffs case: the plaintiffs case is that parities are hindus and are governed by mitakshara school of hindu law read with hindu succession act, 1956. the plaintiff and defendant no. l are brothers. defendant nos. 2 and 3 are their sisters. their late father ram binod singh at .....

Tag this Judgment!


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