Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Court: orissa Year: 2002 Page 1 of about 3 results (0.035 seconds)

Jan 07 2002 (HC)

Rajanikanta Padhi Vs. B. Kameswar Subudhi (Dead) After Him His L.Rs. a ...

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Jan-07-2002

Reported in : 2002(I)OLR646

..... same, a ready reference to the relevant provision i. e., sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (in short 'the act 1932') is beneficial and that reads as hereunder:'(2) no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any ..... in that respect the relevant plea which he raised in the court below is as follows :'the suit is also hit under the provisions of the indian partnership act, the right to enforce have not arisen from a contract on behalf of the firm which is unregistered.'to understand the plea and to decide the ..... not maintainable by the plaintiff without including the co-owner, i.e. his brother and the suit is hit by section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932.8. learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent repelled the aforesaid contention and defended correctness of the impugned judgment.9. before discussing the aforesaid points raised ..... non-compliance of section 18-b(2) and rule 11 (iii) ?(3) is the suit not hit under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act ?(4) is the suit maintainable in law ?(5) is the suit barred by limitation ?(6) to what reliefs ?5. in the court ..... defendant-appellant contends that in the written statement, a plea of non-compliance of the provisions of the money lenders act and the suit being bad on account of section 69 of the partnership act had been raised and if these defences were ultimately established, notwithstanding the admissions of the power of attorney holder, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 11 2002 (HC)

Liberation Education and Action for Development (Lead), Through Its Se ...

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Sep-11-2002

Reported in : 2002(II)OLR568

..... the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.5. a petition for intervention was filed by m/s. laxminarayan manmohan lal, a partnership firm in whose favour the out-still liquor shops in the district of koraput have been settled, inter alia reiterating the stand taken by the ..... panchayat areas, at least the government should consider whether it is necessary to flood the tribal or panchayat area with all forms of liquor, indian made! foreign liquor, out-still liquor and country spirit. the learned advocate general argued that mohua flower is aplenty in this state and it ..... administrative action has been fair and free from the taint of unreasonableness and has substantially complied with the norms of procedure set for it by acts and rules. we are, therefore, not persuaded by the arguments advanced by mr. patra and refrain ourselves from interfering with the policy ..... for the exercise of exclusive privilege. 9. the learned advocate-general appearing for the state forcefully submitted that all the requirements stipulated under the act and the exclusive privilege rules have been sacrosanctly complied with by the state government before issuing the auction sale notice. annexure-8. it is ..... can only be granted in respect of notified area and specified location indicated in the notice.8. a cumulative reading of the provisions of the act and the rules framed thereunder leads to the following irresistible conclusions : (a) no licence or exclusive privilege can be granted in any scheduled .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 24 2002 (HC)

Bidhubhusan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Sep-24-2002

Reported in : 2002(II)OLR459

..... the vehicle in favour of the petitioner on execution of a zimanama with a direction to hand over sanatan das who was actually engaged by the aforesaid partnership firm in driving the vehicle. however, the petitioner failed to produce the driver sanatan das before the police in connection wit this case. it appears that ..... he is the owner of the vehicle in question but not its driver who was actually driving the vehicle on 26.7.1994 being engaged by a partnership firm by name 'm/s. g.n.mohanty and company' and that being so he is not liable to be prosecuted under criminal law. therefore, ..... driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged accident he is not liable to be prosecuted under section 279/337 of indian penal code read with section 187 of the motor vehicles act. he has also pleaded that on the date of the alleged accident, the petitioner was on his business tour to sambalpur ..... injured and the witnesses, seized the offending vehicle from its owner and left the same in his zima. as prima facie evidence under section 279/337, ipc was well established against the accused driver, the i.o. submitted the charge sheet basing on which the learned s.d.j.m., bhubaneswar took cognizance ..... , on the other hand, fairly admitted that there are no incriminating materials available on the record to. fasten the liability under section 279/337 of the indian penal code to the petitioner.5. in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, i am called upon to examine .....

Tag this Judgment!


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