Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: orissa Year: 1973 Page 1 of about 3 results (0.033 seconds)

Aug 03 1973 (HC)

Prem Ratan Mal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ganjam Range a ...

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Aug-03-1973

Reported in : 39(1973)CLT1025; [1974]33STC316(Orissa)

..... petitioner is a firm registered under the indian partnership act and is a dealer in petrol, high speed diesel and light diesel products and kerosene oil. it receives supplies from the indian oil corporation and has been registered as a wholesale distributor under the orissa motor spirit (taxation on sales) act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the act). a certificate of registration under section ..... proceeding. it is in the nature of a penal provision. a registration granted to the petitioner is being cancelled. therefore, the ordinary law has to apply. the evidence act must be followed and the consequence being very serious the petitioner must be given reasonable opportunity of placing the materials before the appropriate authority. it is interesting to note ..... assistant commercial tax officer, intelligence wing, berhampur (opposite party no. 4 in the writ application) being lawfully empowered under section 15 of the orissa motor spirit (taxation on sales) act, 1946, read with rule 33 of the orissa motor spirit (taxation on sales) rules, 1947, to enter, search, seize and inspect the stock of motor spirit and any accounts ..... 7 of the act had been granted to it. on 16th june, 1970, an assistant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 1973 (HC)

Dr. Mrs. Sarojini Pradhan Vs. Khirode Chandra Pradhan

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Jan-23-1973

Reported in : AIR1973Ori214; 39(1973)CLT330

..... the same cause of action cannot arise, because the legal bar sought to be pleaded against the plaintiff being under section 69 of the indian partnership act, the said bar cannot be removed by the plaintiff by getting the alleged partnership firm registered after the cause of action for the suit has arisen. that apart, the delay in the present case is not much ..... statement by incorporating the following statement.'that the plaintiffs suit is hit by section 69 of the indian partnership act. 1932, inasmuch as, by the agreement of 24-3-1965, a partnership was constituted which however has not been registered as a firm under section 59 of the indian partnership act.'she also filed another application in the court below under order 11, rule 12, c. p ..... of the petitioner, it cannot be said that it has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of the jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. in this view of the matter, mr. mohapatra urges that this court cannot interfere with the impugned order rejecting the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 24 1973 (HC)

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Sankar Store and anr.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Aug-24-1973

Reported in : AIR1974Ori85; 39(1973)CLT1043

..... nayasark, town cuttack, while the suit is really by the plaintiff no. 2, gourisankar lal moda alone, since plaintiff no. 1 being neither a company nor a partnership firm has no juristic entity and associating it with plaintiff no. 2 will not alter the nature of the suit being by plaintiff no. 1, who is the ..... on business in cloth at nayasark, cuttack in the name and style of sankar store, which is plain-tiff no. 1. plaintiff no. 1 is neither a partnership firm nor a company. plaintiff no. 2 on behalf of plaintiff no. 1 placed orders with shewdayal mohanlal of 15, noormal lohia lane, calcutta for one bale ..... of the employees of the defendant. the plaintiff served notice on the defendant under section 80, c.p.c. and under section 78-b of the indian railways act on 9-10-63 demanding payment of the amount in claim in the suit. as the notices were not complied with by the defendant, the present suit ..... averred in the plaint. it is also settled law that in absence of pleadings or issues regarding passing of title under section 23 of the sale of goods act, such a case cannot be decided. for the aforesaid reasons, i am of opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title to the goods ..... that the loss of the consignment was due to the negligence of the railways. he decreed the suit, relying on the section 27 of the sale of goods act. he held that since the plaintiffs had acquired title to the suit consignment their suit is maintainable in law.5. mr. pal, learned counsel for the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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