Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: national consumer disputes redressal commission ncdrc Year: 2013 Page 1 of about 8 results (0.104 seconds)

Aug 01 2013 (TRI)

M/S. Nav Bharat Press (Raipur) Vs. M/S. Sahara Prime City Ltd. and Oth ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Aug-01-2013

..... ), is a consumer, in accordance with section 2(1)(d)(i)??. 2. the case of m/s. nav bharat press, the complainant, is that it is a registered partnership firm, under the provisions of indian partnership act, and mainly deals in publication of newspapers, with its publishing centres at raipur, bilaspur, raigarh, durg, bhubaneswar, in the states of chhattisgarh and odisha. the complainant has ..... purpose. 6. instead of touching the heart of the problem, the learned counsel for the complainant has just skirted it. it is difficult to fathom as to how can a partnership firm, which is transacting the business of printing and publication of newspapers, can be said to be a consumer?? it is clear that the employees, representatives, correspondents, etc., would transact ..... may kindly be pleased to :- i) hold that, the opponents are guilty of unfair trade practice and have committed deficiency in service as contemplated under the provisions of consumer protection act. ii) issue appropriate direction to the opponents to complete the entire work of the scheme, i.e., the infrastructural development as mentioned in para ___ above and bungalow booked by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 2013 (TRI)

Keshav Trading Company Through Attorney NasruddIn Bhai Vs. Divisional ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Aug-01-2013

..... complaint was filed before this commission, on 18.07.2005. 5. the opposite party contested this case. the complainant alleges that it is a partnership firm, but no registration certificate has been filed under section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932. the insurance company, vide its letter dated 11.11.2003, has validly declared the complainants claim as no claim?. after repeated reminders ..... counsel for the complainant has invited our attention towards form no.3cb, under the heading statement of particulars required to be furnished under section 44 ab of the income tax act, 1961, in case of a person carrying business?. the name of assessee is mentioned as keshav trading company. in col. no.18 - particulars of payments made to persons specified under ..... . and ors., (2000) 10 scc 19, the honble apex court was pleased to hold :- the appellant had appointed joint surveyors in terms of section 64-um(2) of the insurance act, 1938. their report has been placed on the record in which a detailed account of the factors on the basis of which the joint surveyors had come to the conclusion .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 01 2013 (TRI)

Kishore Shriram SaThe Vs. Vivek Gajanan Joshi

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Oct-01-2013

..... had been filed within the limitation period. with regard to the first question it is seen from agreement placed on record that it was between sayali builders, a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act of 1932 and the petitioner. it is clearly mentioned in the agreement that agreement of development dated 20.06.1987 executed between shri eknath daduji nikam, shri shanatram ..... joined as parties, the things could have been looked with difference but, it is not the case before us. considering the provisions of indian partnership act, inter se relationship between the partners of a firm is governed by the partnership agreement. therefore, to file a consumer complaint in the personal name of the opponent and that to describe him as a builder and developer ..... eknath nigam and sou sadhana shantaram nikam constitutes parternship firm between shri eknath daduji nikam owner of the land and the builder shri vivek gajanand joshi by the deed of partnership ..... .e., the other partner of sayali builder breathed his last on 06.05.1998 and the firm sayali builders had only two partners and as per section 42 of the partnership act with the demise of one partner the firm is dissolved and only mr. vivek gajanand joshi (respondent) was left who can sue or be sued. the state commission has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 25 2013 (TRI)

Gopinath Nagar ?a? Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. Vs. M/S. Nandan Builders a ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Sep-25-2013

k.s. chaudhari, presiding member this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 28.07.2011 passed by the maharashtra state consumer disputes redressal commission, mumbai, (in short, the state commission) in appeal no. a/11/574 gopinath nagar vs. m/s. nandan builders and ors. by which, appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed at admission stage. 2. brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner filed complaint before district forum and prayed for direction to the op/respondent to execute deed of convenience in favour of the complainant no.1/society and further direction to ops to complete the incomplete work and further prayed for compensation along with interest. learned district forum partly allowed the complaint and directed op to execute conveyance deed, but did not grant other reliefs against which, appeal filed by the complainant/petitioner was not admitted against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay. 3. heard learned counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record. 4. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of financial crunch, revision petition could not be filed in time; hence, delay in filing revision petition be condoned. 5. in the application for condonation of delay, period of delay to be condoned has not been mentioned, but as per office report, there is delay of 372 days in filing revision petition. paragraph .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 2013 (TRI)

M.O.H. Leathers Ltd. Vs. Indian Bank Nandanam Branch Represented by It ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Sep-02-2013

..... year 1986. uco bank was the banker of the said firm. in the year 1990, indian bank became the banker of the partnership firm. the aforesaid partnership firm was converted into a private limited company, i.e., the complainant and the indian bank, op, in this case, was retained as its banker. 2. in the year ..... section 19 of the act. complainant would have ample opportunity to raise all the issues presented in the present complaint. that apart, when we examined the complaint, it raises complex ..... (original petition no.116 of 2001, decided on 15.10.2001) i (2002) cpj 31 (nc), it was held:- under section 18 of the act, jurisdiction of this commission is barred where the bank has filed suit. defendant in that suit can claim set-off or even counter claim against the bank under ..... matter is purely covered within the jurisdiction of drt or drat. if there is any grievance against the notice under section 13(2) of the sarfaesi act, that should be brought to the notice of the concerned authority. it is well settled that main creditor and the guarantors are equally responsible. there ..... chennai, for recovery of debt. consequently, the consumer fora do not have jurisdiction to try this case. while we were dealing with a case of sarfaesi act in shriyashwant g. ghaisas and ors. vs. bank of maharashtra, on 06.12.2012, in consumer complaint no.302 of 2012, this commission, dismissed the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 07 2013 (TRI)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lanco Rani Joint Venture and Anoth ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Feb-07-2013

..... is directory in nature which cannot be granted in a complaint before the consumer fora. findings: in the following facts are not disputed. complainant, a partnership firm engaged in the construction business was awarded a contract by the opposite party no. 2, national highway authority of india for widening/construction of 413 ..... unjustified. there is no illegality or jurisdiction error in the order of the state commission calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction under section 21(b) of cp act, 1986.? 32. similarly, in the case of esys information technologies ltd. v. new india assurance co. ltd., iv (2008) cpj 30 (nc), ..... claims that if the policy and the surveyors report is implemented, it would lead to violation of tariff and section 64 vb of the insurance act and law empowers it to recover the deficit premium at any time. the table below shows the difference between the surveyors assessment and the insurance ..... the policy are framed by the tariff advisory committee, a statutory body constituted under section 64u of the insurance act, 1938. the same has to be followed by all the general insurance companies and any deviation or breach of tariff would attract the provisions ..... of the complaint on the grounds that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in section (2)(d)(ii) of the consumer protection act, 1986 as the services were availed of for commercial purpose; that the tariff governing the rates of premium and the terms and condition of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 12 2013 (TRI)

M/S. Rajankumar and Bros (impex) Vs. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Nov-12-2013

..... assurance co. ltd., iv (2009) cpj 8 (sc)]. 3. the facts of this case are these. m/s. rajankumar and bros., (impex) is a partnership firm which transacts the business as importers and exporters of various commodities, including steel coils. the oriental insurance co. ltd., issued a marine cargo cover dated 14.05. ..... letter, in this regard or reminder was also sent. the complainant has produced on record, the ship particulars which mention class - irs?, which stands for indian registrar of shipping. our only finding is that this representation was falsely made. there was no such class. consequently, the value of the claim made by the ..... complainant. iv. to hold and declare the op to be guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as per provisions of the c p act, 1986. v. to direct the op to rectify the defects in its service and pay the complainants a sum of rs.1,61,32,953/- ..... arbitration petition against the owners of the vessel, mumbai port trust and the cargo owners, including the complainant herein, under section 9 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 in the honble high court, mumbai and obtained an ex-parte interim order dated 13.08.2010, restraining the complainant and other cargo owners from, in ..... of singapore and mr.r.k. joshi of op 1 and 2 that the op had received all the compliances as required under section 64vba of insurance act and confirmed that the same were in order. 9. on 08.08.2010, it was reported that on 07.08.2010, there was collusion between .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 13 2013 (TRI)

Rugs India (100 Percent Eou) a Partnership Firm, Huda, Panipat, Haryan ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Nov-13-2013

..... india (2006) 5 scc 311. expending on the argument learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the state commission failed to appreciate that in bhagwatiprasad pawan kumar case (supra) the indian railways had forwarded the cheque against the claim of the claimant of that case making it clear in the forwarding letter that in case the offer of the railway was ..... the supreme court in the matter of bhagwati prasad kumar (supra) and it failed to appreciate that the aforesaid judgment is based upon the entirely different facts. in that case, indian railways had send the cheque to the claimant in full and final settlement of the claim making it clear that if the offer was not acceptable, the claimant should return ..... .092006 payable at mumbai towards fee payable to you for providing the information under the said act.? 4. the respondent/opposite party failed to pay to the petitioner the difference of the claim of the petitioner to the tune of rs.44,04,015/- and the amount ..... surveyor report alongwith copy of work sheet, how this amount has been arrived. kindly provide the above information/document under right to information act 2005 failing which we shall be compelled to take legal action under the said act. we are enclosing herewith draft of rs.50.00 in the favour of icici lombard general insurance co. ltd. no.084783 dated 04 .....

Tag this Judgment!


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