Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-12-1990
Reported in : AIR1991Ori51; 71(1991)CLT49
..... ). on 28-2-1986, the learned trial judge came to hold that the plaintiffs suit was not maintainable for want of registration of the partnership firm as it was hit by section 69 of the indian partnership act. on 5-3-1986, the plaintiff filed an application objecting to the maintainability of the defendants' counter-claim after dismissal of the plaintiffs suit. the said ..... by the rules applicable to plaints.'it may be noted that this provision was not there in the civil procedure code of 1908 and was brought by way of amendment by amending act of 1976 which was given effect to with effect from 1-2-1977.5. so far as first submission of mr. basu is concerned, it depends upon an interpretation of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-20-1990
Reported in : 1991(I)OLR70
..... no. 1 batliboy and co. private limited filed. money suit no. 3688 of 1969 agamit the opposite party no. davaloy trading house, a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act in the calcutta high-court and obtained a decree for realisation of rs. 1,05,645.85 with interest at the rate of 6 per ..... between themselves. when the decree is passed, it is against the firm. such a decree is capable of being executed against the property of the partnership and also against two classes of persons individually. they are (sic) persons who appeared in answer to summons served on them as partners and either ..... writing given at the time of such service, whether he is served as a partner or as a person having the control or management of. the ; partnership business, or in both characters and, in default of such notice, the person served shall be deemed to be served as a partneras provided under rule ..... .6. for proper appreciation of the matter it is necessary to notice some provisions of the civil procedure code which deal with suits and execution cases relating to partnership firms. order 30, c. p. c. contains the provisions regarding suits by or against firms and persons carrying on bisiness in names other than their ..... to realise the decretal dues from him and to take coercive process for that purpose.5. as noticed earlier, the suit was filed against the partnership firm only. the petitioner had not been impleaded in the suit as a partner of the firm or in any other capacity. but in the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-17-1990
Reported in : AIR1991Ori98
..... 'ment also and i find sufficient force in the same. the plaintiff in the plaint had made a categorical assertion that for the purpose of business of the partnership firm (defendant no. 1), defendant no. 2 executed an agreement for cash credit on security of pledge of goods, produce and merchandise dated 28th of november, ..... of india has been decreed to the extent of rs. 16,245.44 paise.2. plaintiffs case in brief is the defendant no. 1 is a partnership firm of which defendants 2 to 5 are partners. the defendants approached the plaintiff for cash credit accommodation and the plaintiff granted a cash credit accommodation to ..... stated in paragraph 13 of the plaint.10. mr. sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff bank, then urges that section 25(3) of the indian contract act would save the period of limitation, inasmuch as under ext. 15 dated 21-5-1974, defendant. no. 4 who is also one of the partners had ..... the matter, i am unable to accept mr. sinha's contention and hold that section 25(3) of the indian contract act does not come into play.11. mr. misra for the appellant had advanced also the argument that ext. 3 had not been executed by defendant no. ..... an express promise by defendant no. 4 to pay a barred debt. therefore, the condition precedent for applying sub-section (3) of section 25 of the indian contract act has not been satisfied by virtue of ext. 15. that apart, such a case had not at all been pleaded in the plaint. in that view of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Mar-05-1990
Reported in : AIR1992Ori37; 69(1990)CLT674
..... name or in the name of any other member of his family or firm with whom he is associated having coparcenary or partnership interest. on the basis of this order dated 16-3-1985 (annexure 22) another order was also issued on that day (annexure 23) blacklisting the petitioner. aggrieved by the same ..... listed the petitioner and prohibited to enter into any contract with government ayurvedic pharmacy, bolangir or any other hospital or dispensary or institution under the control of the directorate of indian medicine and homeopathy, orissa for a period of five years. in the order, it was stated that no contract shall be entered into with the petitioner either in his own ..... amount should not be recovered or adjusted from out of the pending bills. if such opportunity would have been given, petitioner might have explained that the officers purchasing did not act fairly and paid higher price or that by the time of purchase the said articles were available with the petitioner for supply and if opportunity would have been given, he .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-09-1990
Reported in : AIR1991Ori117
..... the date of issue of section 80, c.p.c. notice, by virtue of the provisions of section 70 of the indian contract act. chapter v of the indian contract act comprises of only five sections, from sections 68 to 72. the chapter is headed 'of certain relations resembling those created by contract ..... sum of rs. 24,099.58.2. the plaintiffs' case may be briefly stated as follows:the plaintiffs are the partners representing the registered partnership firm m/s. jain mills and electrical stores which deals in electrical goods and supplies electrical equipments, appliances and materials to government and semi- ..... supplied by the plaintiffs, whether they are entitled to claim the relief prayed for in the suit by invoking the provisions of section 70 of the indian contract act? (3) as the defendants have not paid the price for the plaint 'a' schedule goods, in spite of repeated demands by the plaintiffs ..... the contract altogether. the contract of sale in the present case is governed by the provisions of the indian sale of goods act, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). section 42 of the act provides:'the buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods when he intimates to the seller that he ..... so the plaintiffs' claim that they are entitled to the reliefs prayed for by invoking section 70 is not legally tenable. the trial court acted illegally in invoking the provision under section 70 while granting the relief to the plaintiffs. perhaps the plaintiffs also were aware of the non-applicability .....Tag this Judgment!