Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Court: rajasthan Year: 2006 Page 1 of about 7 results (0.019 seconds)

Mar 29 2006 (HC)

State of Rajasthan Vs. Sahiram Ram Chandra

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-29-2006

Reported in : RLW2006(3)Raj2300; 2006(3)WLC738

..... .68 principal + 8,098.32 interest). the plaintiff-firm carries the work of contract with the pubic works department (b & r). the plaintiff firm is a registered firm under the indian partnership act, 1932 and sahiram is one of the partners in the said firm. the plaintiff firm took a contract for making 'sangaria-tb' road from 15/5 kms. to 23/0 ..... both the parties, the learned trial court decided the issues no. 1 and 4 in favour of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff-respondent is a registered partnership firm under the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 and the plaintiff is entitled t recover the amount of the final bill rs. 1 020.50 and security amount rs. 7322/- total rs. 8342.50 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 2006 (HC)

Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. P.P. Industries

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-30-2006

Reported in : AIR2006Raj168

..... not filed by a competent person. it was also stated that the plaintiff firm has neither been lawfully registered under the provisions of the partnership act nor any certificate showing the names of the partners was produced. it was further stated that the rajasthan state electricity board is a body ..... nothing was found incorrect in the meter till it was complained by the plaintiff on 5-8-1997.33. section 26(6) of the indian electricity act provides that while making calculation for payment in such matters, demand cannot be raised for more than 6 months. here, in this case the ..... consideration in the instant case, are as follows:(1) whether the matter required adjudication by the electrical inspector under section 26(6) of the indian electricity act when it was complained by the plaintiff that the meter was not functioning properly and for that matter for the change of the meter a ..... the defendant to have referred the dispute relating to slow running of the meter to the electrical inspector under section 26(6) of the indian electricity act and to proceed as per his decision because even if the meter was showing less electricity consumption then too the defendant could not recover ..... did not agree to it and were bent upon to disconnect the electric connection. it was also stated that under the provisions of the indian electricity act particularly under section 26, it was essential for the authorities concerned to have referred the matter to the electrical inspector to investigate/check the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 08 2006 (HC)

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Dhariwal and Co. and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-08-2006

Reported in : RLW2007(1)Raj123

..... railway authorities only, and the same is, therefore, not maintainable, and the suit has been wrongly decreed.10. elaborating the argument, it was contended, that section 69(2) of the partnership act enacts two fold requirements; the first being, about the firm being registered, and the second being, about the plaintiffs being required to be shown as partners in the register of ..... not for enforcement of any of the 'right arising from contract', but is a suit for claiming damages for tortuous liability of the defendant, and the liability arises under the indian carries act, being a common law duty of the carrier, and that the learned trial court has rightly found his aspect in favour of the plaintiff, by relying upon the judgment ..... damaged by moisture, and the railway authorities did not take requisite care and caution, even in minimising the loss. then, also considering the provisions of section 76 of the indian railways act, it was held, that the defendants have failed to show any satisfactory reason, as to why goods were not rescued from the place of accident for about 3 months and ..... proved the firm to be registered, and other plaintiffs to be partners, it was also considered, that since the defendant railways are common carrier, they are under obligation under the indian carriers act to reach the goods to destination safely, and within a reasonable time, and if the goods get damaged, or get destroyed, is required to compensate as a tortuous liability .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 2006 (HC)

Jai Ram Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-27-2006

Reported in : 2006CriLJ2816; RLW2006(3)Raj2025

..... case, there is strong prima facie evidence against the petitioner for offences under section 7, 13(1)(d)(2) of prevention of corruption act, 1988 and section 120b indian penal code. there is statement of the complainant who has described his plight in detail. there is evidence that when the officers of ..... , a formal fir was chalked out on 17.5.03 for offences under sections 7, 13(1)(d)(2) of prevention of corruption act, 1988 and section 120b, ipc against the petitioner and sanjay sharma. initially the petitioner challenged the fir by filing a writ petition before this court, registered as sbcwp no ..... fir no. 132/05, registered at anti corruption bureau, jaipur for offences under sections 7, 13(1)(d)(2) of prevention of corruption act, 1988 & section 120b of the indian penal code.2. the brief facts of the case are that on 9.5.03, the complainant, shivraj singh, the respondent no. ..... further argued that no offence under section 7 or under section 13(1)(d)(2) of the prevention of corruption act is made out. as far as offence under section 120b ipc is concerned, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner and sanjay sharma had entered into any criminal conspiracy. ..... 2, lodged a complaint with the addl. superintendent of police (anti corruption department), jaipur rural, wherein he alleged that he and his cousin brother, ranjeet singh had bought a truck in partnership .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 2006 (HC)

Ajay Type Writers Vs. Dhanpat Raj

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-09-2006

Reported in : RLW2007(2)Raj1483

..... that the plaintiff and his father owns separate property, on different floors, and according to para-6, the plaintiff's father was earlier carrying on business in partnership, while now he is carrying on business in sole proprietorship. it was also contended, that ordinarily the expression 'family' means, spouse and children, and thus, ..... deciding, as to whether a person is a member of another family or not. then various english cases were referred to. then few judgments of indian courts were also considered, and then in para-16 it was held as under:16. as i have stated earlier, a perusal of all these cases ..... the natural son, and consequently he would not be a 'member of the family'. on these facts hon'ble the supreme court considered that the relevant act of tamil nadu defined the expression 'member of his family' to mean spouse, son, daughter, grandchild or dependent parent. then, hon'ble the supreme ..... common ancestor, who are actually living with the same head, and a beneficial provision must be meaningfully construed, so as to advance the object of the act, and curing any lacuna or defect, appearing in the same. thus the term 'family' must always be liberally and broadly construed, so as to ..... and occupation, or for the use and occupation of any member of his family.9. obviously the expression 'family' has not been defined under the act. on the side of the appellant, reference was made to para-7 of the written statement, wherein it was pleaded, that plaintiff's father bhanwar .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 2006 (HC)

Asuji Bharat Kumar Vs. Shantilal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-09-2006

Reported in : RLW2007(1)Raj241

..... pleadings prayer for eviction was made.3. the defendants filed a joint written statement on 27.1.1986, contending interalia, that the defendant no. 1 partnership firm is in existence since much before taking the premises on rent, whose partners were mishrimal and sohanraj, and they continued to be partner till dissolution ..... judge of this court, considering rahman's case, himself went into the matter, holding, that undoubtedly, even in absence of specific pleading, court has to act in compliance of the mandate, and give a finding, and in that case the matter was considered, and it was held, that the landlord is ..... court. then, in bharatpur wholesale sahakari upbhokta bhandar ltd's case it was held, that prior to amendment ordinance of 1975, the rent control act did not contemplate for splitting up of the premises for the purposes of passing a decree for partial eviction, but now it contemplates, and then ..... as the landlord has proved the requirement of the premises for obtaining eviction of the tenant; the proviso to section 11(1)(c) of the act requires the court to consider where the requirement of landlord is substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant from a part only, and allowing the tenant ..... assailed was, that the court of fact failed in recording a finding, as contemplated by proviso to explanation to section 11(1)(h) of the act. it was noticed, that the trial curt and the first appellate court have really not considered this question, on the merits; indeed evidence itself has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 18 2006 (HC)

Cadila Health Care Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-18-2006

Reported in : 2007CriLJ1899

..... the partnership deed later is of no consequence for determining the point in issue. section 141 does not make all partners liable for the offence. the criminal liability has been fastened on ..... are no averments against the appellants except stating in the title that they are partners of the firm. learned counsel for the respondent complainants contended that a copy of the partnership deed was also filed which would show that the appellants were active in the business. no such document was filed with the complaint or made part thereof. the filing of ..... behari billya, accused no. 14, partner of m/s. sriram medical was given one sample. on 31-12-1998, the drug inspector sent one sample to the government analyst, central indian pharmacopoeia laboratory, ghaziabad by registered post. on 20-1-99 the sample was received by the government analyst and the report of which was sent on 24-6-1999 with ..... . in paragraph 17 of the complaint petition the complainant quoted the provisions of the act. in addition, he cited the names of witnesses, submitted a list of documents including a copy of the partnership deed at item 13 of the list of documents. the learned magistrate perused the partnership deed and prima facie found that the respondents as well as the deceased accused .....

Tag this Judgment!


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