Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: karnataka Year: 2007 Page 1 of about 11 results (0.016 seconds)

Sep 25 2007 (HC)

Smt. K. Vasantha Kumari Vs. D. Devendra Reddy

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-25-2007

Reported in : 2008CriLJ1001; 2008(1)AIRKarR398; AIR2008NOC696; 2008CriLJ1001;

..... overlooked section 69(3)(a) of the indian partnership act (reproduced below) which could have furnished proper interpretation of the matter in issue:69. effect of non-registration.- (1) x x x(2) x x x(3) the provisions of ..... behalf or against the firm in respect of a contract with the firm to consider the claim under section 69(1) or (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act. on determination of the partnership, the agreement between the complainant and the accused had come into effect and the cheques were allegedly issued in furtherance of that agreement. the learned trial judge also ..... which the learned trial judge has held that the offence has not been proved, the reference has been made by the learned trial judge to section 69(2) of the indian partnership act. the said provision provides no suit to enforce a right arising from contract shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party ..... . p-4 (on demand promissory note) had been executed by the accused, but went into the question of legality of the partnership firm operating without registration and observing that in view of the provisions of section 69(2) of indian partnership act, the firm being an unregistered firm, all transactions were illegal. he also observed that oral evidence of pw 1 was not in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 03 2007 (HC)

Gowri Containers Vs. S.C. Shetty and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-03-2007

Reported in : 2008CriLJ498; ILR2007KAR4586; 2008(1)KarLJ55

..... or goods is a legitimate debt or liability and therefore it is a legally enforceable debt or liability. the disability of an unregistered firm under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act to file a suit to enforce a right arising out of a contract does not make such debt or liability not a legally enforceable debt or liability.12. in the ..... that articles had not been supplied is patently false.9. now coming to the contention of the respondents that in view of the provisions of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, the amount under the transaction was not legally enforceable debt, reliance has been placed by the respondents learned advocate on a division bench decision of andhra pradesh high court in ..... supply of containers was towards the enforcement of contract and consequently the amount claimed under the cheques being the amount in furtherance of the contract, section 69(2) of the indian partnership act is applicable. he further submits that the suggestions made by the accused clearly show that the goods had been delivered to one raja screen printers and not to the accused ..... submits that this is not a claim arising out of a contract, but the cheques having been issued for payment of price of goods supplied, section 69(2) of the indian partnership act has no application to the present case. as regards the observation of the learned trial judge that in the absence of documentary evidence, the sole testimony of p.w.i .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 26 2007 (HC)

Mspl Limited Vs. S.B. Minerals

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-26-2007

Reported in : AIR2008Kant60; 2008(2)KLJ131; 2008(1)KCCR426; 2008(2)AIRKarR207; 2008AIHC1664(Kar)

..... having answered this question against the defendant and not on a proper appreciation of the provisions of law, particularly the provisions of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 or the principle emanating from this section and therefore has committed a material irregularity in passing the impugned order and the order calls for being revised ..... judge has committed material irregularity notwithstanding the law as declared in haldiram's case.7. the bar as contained in section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, which reads as under:69. effect of non-registration.-(1) no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this ..... it is a matter to be decided by the trial court. but, even in terms of the provisions of section 69 of the act, the suit does not become bad as technically the partnership firm is one registered and the person who had signed on the date of filing of the suit was in fact a partner. ..... the persons suing are or have been shown in the register of firms as partners in the firm.is basically in respect of suits which are filed by partnership firm for the purpose of enforcing contracts against the defendants. in the present case, obviously it is not any enforcement of any contract as between the ..... act shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 2007 (HC)

Mahesh Centre Joint Family Firm Represented by Father/Manager D.L. Nan ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-14-2007

..... the trial court committed an error in holding that the plaintiffs amended the plaint with bad faith to overcome the bar under section 69 of the partnership act.8. per contra, sri. a.n. jayaram, learned senior counsel for the defendants support the judgment of the trial court. the huf was ..... will suffer greater hardship by grant of refusal of decree?(v) whether the defendant is liable to execute lease deed under section 36 of the indian trust act 1882?(vi) whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree for the specific performance?(vii) whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the possession of ..... . the correspondence was with a firm by name m/s. mahesh centre which is a partnership concern. the draft agreement relied on by the plaintiffs was with the partnership firm and plaintiffs are not a partnership firm but the same is proprietary concern. this court allowed the amendment of written statement. consequently ..... plaintiff in the cause title is necessary for just and effective adjudication of the controversy between the parties. therefore, section 21(1) of limitation act has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. the trial court committed an error in concluding that the suit of the plaintiff ..... the rules of procedure. the court always gives leave to amend the pleadings of the party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting malafide or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 2007 (HC)

Mahesh Centre and anr. Vs. People Charity Fund by Its Trustees

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-14-2007

Reported in : 2007(4)KarLJ4344

..... the trial court committed and error in holding that the plaintiffs amended the plaint with bad faith to overcome the bar under section 69 of the partnership act.8. per contra, sri a.n. jayaram, learned senior counsel for the defendants support the judgment of the trial court. the huf was ..... will suffer greater hardship by grant of refusal of decree?v) whether the defendant is liable to execute lease deed under section 36 of the indian trust act 1882?vi) whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree for the specific performance?vii) whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the possession of ..... . the correspondence was with a firm by name m/s. mahesh centre which is a partnership concern. the draft agreement relied on by the plaintiffs was with the partnership firm and plaintiffs are not a partnership firm but the same is proprietary concern. this court allowed the amendment of written statement. ..... title in the plaint correcting the misdescription of the status of the first plaintiff do not attract the provisions of section 21 of the limitation act.15. it is the contention of the plaintiffs that first plaintiff is the joint family firm and second plaintiff is its kartha. on behalf ..... first plaintiff in the cause title is necessary for just and effective adjudication of merantioversy between the parties. therefore, section 21(1) of limitation act has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. the trial court committed an error in concluding that the suit of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 14 2007 (HC)

V.N. Jartarghar and Bros., a Partnership Firm by Its Partner Sri Vishw ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-14-2007

Reported in : AIR2008Kar159; 2008(3)KCCR1809; 2008(4)AIRKarR145; 2008AIHC2902(Kar).

..... the plaintiffs and they are their landlords. indeed this may not be a case of estoppel within the meaning of section 116 of the evidence act, which would certainly operate in favour of the landlord. the principal of estoppel is also applicable to cases not strictly coming within the provisions of ..... , it is not open for the defendants now to contend that the plaintiffs have derivative title and the estoppel under section 116 of the evidence act will not come in their way in questioning the said title. obviously, once by conduct and acquiesance, the defendant acknowledges the plaintiff as the ..... i have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the teamed counsel appearing to the parties. indeed under section 116 of the evidence act, the tenant is estopped from questioning the title of the landlord. in this regard, this proposition of law is no longer res integra inasmuch as ..... finding that it is not open for the defendants to question the title of the plaintiffs as they are estopped under section 116 of the evidence act consequently he submits that the judgments and decrees of the courts below are liable to be interfered.8. mr. v.t. rayareddi, learned counsel ..... the defendants had initiated proceedings in hrc 73/1989 on the file of the ii additional munsiff, hubli under section 19 of the karnataka rent control act, 1961. according to the plaintiffs in the said proceedings, the defendants admitted the ownership of the plaintiffs.3. the learned trial judge allowed the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 01 2007 (HC)

Smt. Santosh Achcha W/O G.M. Sripal JaIn Vs. State of Karnataka - by I ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-01-2007

Reported in : AIR2007Kant77; 2007(4)KarLJ189; 2007(4)KCCRSN252; 2007(2)AIRKarR530; AIR2007Kant77

..... thus:section 45a: instrument of conveyance, etc, undervalued how to be dealt with:1. if the registering officer appointed under the registration act, 1908 while registering any instrument of conveyance, gift exchange, settlement, partition, dissolution of partnership, release or an agreement to sell covered under sub-clause (i) of clause (e) and clause (f) of article 5, a lease ..... in collecting a fair duty which the state is entitled to. the committee constituted under section 45b based on the provisions of the rules framed under the stamp act, has to act from time to time and depending upon the prevailing market value taking into consideration various aspects, call for objections after arriving at a particular market value and thereafter, ..... raised by the petitioners, i do not find any unconstitutionality or unreasonableness or arbitrariness in the amended provisions of section 45a and section 45b of the stamp act, 1957. further more, the act of the respondent authorities in withholding the registration and insisting the petitioners to pay the stamp duty does not call for interference.31. if the petitioners are ..... upon various factors such as clear and marketable title, location of the property, market condition, economic condition of the seller, the reason for selling the property, etc. the act of the committee constituted under section 45b in recommending to issue a notification by estimating the value of the property in a particular area in general terms without specifying or .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 30 2007 (HC)

M.C. Associates, a Partnership Firm Rep. by Its Managing Partner/Autho ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-30-2007

Reported in : AIR2008Kant207; 2009(1)KarLJ71; 2008(4)KCCR2283; 2008(6)AIRKarR134

..... period of two years specified in section 45-a(3).since the impugned notices were issued under section 45-a(3) of the karnataka stamp act, 1957 with jurisdiction and competence, the writ petition was not maintainable and therefore it was rightly dismissed. for the very same reason, this writ ..... 3). therefore the action taken by the 2nd respondent in respect of annexure-b sale deed under section 45-a(3) of the karnataka stamp act, 1957 is with jurisdiction and competence. there is no merit in the contention of the petitioners that the impugned notices were issued without jurisdiction ..... of the deputy commissioner.provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any instrument registered before the commencement of the karnataka stamp (amendment) act, 1975.provided further that the payment of interest is not applicable to instruments executed prior to 31st day of march, 2006.6. the above statutory ..... petitioners had not received any earlier notice from the 2nd respondent. it is contended that proceedings under section 45-a(3) of the karnataka stamp act, 1957 can be initiated within two years from the date of registration of the document and that in this case the proceedings were initiated after ..... 8.10.2002 and 13.12.2002 issued to the petitioners by the 2nd respondent - deputy commissioner under section 45-a of the karnataka stamp act, 1957. the main contention of the petitioners is that the impugned notices and proceedings were without jurisdiction as the sale deed in question was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 06 2007 (HC)

Lmj International Limited, (a Govt. Recognised Goldan Star Trading Hou ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jul-06-2007

Reported in : 2007CriLJ4437; 2008(3)KarLJ669

..... examine the complaint to find out the nature of the dispute between the parties. the apex court in a very recent decision in the case of indian oil corporation v. nkpc india ltd. reported in : air2006sc2780 has observed thus:however, there is a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely ..... in the said complaint are to the affect that the petitioners herein had committed the offences alleged under sections 138 and 142 of the n.i. act and under section 420 of the i.p.c. as far as this complaint is concerned, the background facts concerning the petitioners issuing the cheque ..... the parties which is purely of a civil nature. no where in the said complaint, it has been stated that the petitioners herein had acted dishonestly or had the intention of cheating the 2nd respondent/complainant. the whole of the complaint only speaks about the business transaction of giving raw ..... an amount of rs. 10 lakhs to the 2nd respondent and therefore under the above circumstances, the question of offences under the n.i. act being attracted will not arise. the trial court therefore committed serious error in directing issuance of process to the petitioners.7. one other submission made ..... complaints is there any averment to the effect that the petitioners had the intention of cheating the 2nd respondent or for that matter, the petitioners acted dishonestly. under the said circumstances, the order passed by the trial court directing the police to investigate cannot be sustained in law and the said .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 2007 (HC)

Shamadhan Trading (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka, Department of Parli ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-05-2007

Reported in : 2008(2)KarLJ509; ILR2007(4)Kar5014; 2007(4)KCCR2628

..... , cited supra. the observations made therein are aptly applicable to this matter.the kerala high court, while dealing with the question relating to validity of 'kerala tax on paper lotteries act 2005', negatived similar contentions raised by the petitioners, in w.p.(c). no. 12189/2007, decided on 29.6.2007 and upheld the enactment. the provisions therein are almost ..... xxxxxsection 8 - registration of promoters and sellers: (1) every promoter, and every person selling lottery tickets received from a promoter directly or otherwise, shall get himself registered under this act in such manner on payment of such fee and within such period as may be prescribed.provided that a person ordinarily selling lottery tickets (other than lottery tickets of any ..... or regulates right of another state to carry on business of lottery. the petitioners also have not contended that they are subjected to any regulation or control. the impugned act is applicable equally to all lotteries of the states including the lottery run by department of lotteries of karnataka state. the court construing and interpreting the constitution or provisions of ..... aforementioned contentions.per contra, it is contended by sri vijayashankar, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-state that the state has got legislative competence to enact the act in question, inasmuch as by virtue of the said enactment the state has imposed tax on betting and gambling; entry 40 of list i does not prohibit the respondent- .....

Tag this Judgment!


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