Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: maharashtra state consumer disputes redressal commission scdrc mumbai Page 1 of about 3 results (0.025 seconds)

Aug 29 2012 (TRI)

Mayuresh Park Jasmine I, J and K Co-op Housing Society Ltd. Through It ...

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

..... .3-mr.harisingh gogavat is described as chief promoter and authorized signatory of the firm company which is registered under the indian partnership act, 1958. at the outset, it may be mentioned that if opponent builder firm is registered under the indian partnership act, then it will have only partners and not chairman and managing director which has a character akin to the company registered ..... under the companies act. 2. it is the grievance of the complainant society that the builder which has constructed housing complex mayuresh park ..... charges which in fact ought to have been paid by the builder and, therefore, they should be reimbursed, then such claim would be covered u/sec.69 of the indian contract act and it will not fall with the scope of a consumer dispute. 15. furthermore, for the sake of argument if we presume that the actionable claim in respect thereof ..... contained in the flat purchase agreements with the members of the complainant and that the services provided by the opponents as ??promoter ? as per the provisions of maharashtra ownership flats act are defective, deficient and unfair trade practices towards the members of the complainants; b) this honble commission be further pleased to direct the opponents to pay compensation to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 25 2012 (TRI)

Arvind Rajpal Yadav Vs. Charudatta Vasantrao Tulkarpurkar and Others

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

..... ??person for the purpose of a consumer litigation and thus, registration of a partnership firm is not mandatory under the consumer protection act, 1986. however, registration of a partnership firm is mandatory under the indian partnership act, 1932 and if a partnership firm is not registered, section-69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 prohibits institution, of a suit. however, a consumer complaint is not ..... it is the individual partner who are responsible in their individual capacity and that is settled position of law under the indian partnership act, 1932 and, therefore, even though the partnership firm is dissolved, the assets of the partnership firm are taken by the partners to the proportion of their share and, therefore, their individual liability and obligation qua ..... a suit and, therefore, those provisions embodied under section-69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 are not applicable ..... the respondent no.1/complainant do not cease to exists. it is also well settled principle under the indian partnership act, 1932 that one of the partners of the firm can enter into an agreement with third parties for and on behalf of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 22 2013 (TRI)

National Power Tools Vs. the National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

..... 13/01/1996 i.e. prior to renewal of the policy under discussion, the insurance company has not changed the address in the renewed policy. additionally, deed of dissolution of partnership firm and other supporting document like leave and licence agreement of new address though supplied to the insurance company, no action whatsoever to decide the claim has been taken since ..... . 7. issue of limitation as raised by the insurance company, it is clarified that the state commission in the case of of m/s.jyoti impex v/s. the new indian assurance company ltd. and ors., has explained the occurrence of cause of action in different circumstances while reckoning the period to consider the date of cause of action. in the ..... reduced to rs.15 lakhs and as there was change of business premises, change was intimated with reduction in sum insured. the opponent/national insurance company (in short ??insurance company) acted upon the request of the complainant/company and reduced the sum insured to rs.15 lakhs. such a change of address was intimated by communication dated 13/01/1996. the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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