Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-16-2013
..... no.1 is joint and several not only in terms of the agreement and the deed by the guarantor but in terms of statutory provision of section 25 of the indian partnership act, 1932. such aspect was clarified in appeal by the secretary, cooperation, punjab wherein it was observed as under: the bank has given the loan to the company through its partners ..... .07.2004 (p-2).learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the liability of the petitioners is to the extent of 1/3 share each in terms of the partnership deed entered between the parties. since the petitioners have paid their share, they cannot be called upon to make payment of the remaining share of the other partners.we do ..... .02.2010 passed in revision by secretary, cooperation, punjab (p-3).the petitioners and one lalita goyal were partners of the firm m/s sai mohan das brick company. the partnership firm availed the cash credit limit of ` 4,80,000/- from ferozepur central cooperative bank ltd.ferozepur-respondent no.1. since the amount was not paid, therefore, in terms of ..... per the agreement executed by them with the bank. in view of the above, we do not find any jurisidictional error in the orders passed by the authorities under the act, which may warrant interference by this court. dismissed. (hemant gupta) judge (ritu bahri) judge january 16, 2013 g.arora/vimal .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-22-2013
..... against the order passed by the court below rejecting application under order 7 rule 11. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, no suit could be entertained by the court below on behalf of unregistered firm. thus, application under order 7 rule 11 ought to have been accepted. i have heard learned .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-28-2013
..... in the absence of specific authority to accept notice to any other partner. the legal effect of interplay of section 19 and section 22 of the indian partnership act has also been brought out in a decision of the madras high court in m/s. alagappa cotton mills, rajapalayam vs. indo burmah trading corporation ..... to bind partners cannot include a right of representation in arbitral proceedings without any notice. section 24 cannot be allowed to eclipse section 22 of the partnership act. there ought to be a harmonious construction with a full play of both provisions. the supreme court was actually considering a case where the liability for ..... of rajasthan (2005) 7 scc 30.to contend that a notice to one partner will bind the other partners as well, in view of section 24 of partnership act. the said decision spells out three circumstances when notice to one partner will bind other partners:- (a) notice must be given to a partner (b) ..... relevant statutory provision 3. the issue of whether the service of notice to one of the partners is sufficient could be seen from the textual reference to the partnership act itself. section 19 reads as follows:- 19. implied authority of partner as agent of the firm- (1) fao no.5066 of 2003 -4- subject to ..... that there is no implied authority for any one party to refer the matter to arbitration under section 19(2) of the partnership act and therefore, one of the partners kewal singh could not have a lawful authority to represent the other partners and submit to .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jan-29-2013
..... award of majority of arbitrators was upheld limited to the point of declaration that the partnership firm stood dissolved and rest of the award was set aside. [i] the partnership deed contains clauses, which read as follows:- "13. the partnership shall be governed by tall provisions of the indian partnership act, save and as otherwise provided that the firm shall not be dissolved by reasons of ..... the letters patent appeal no.51/2002 as modified in review application no.8367/2003, present applicant mr. vitthal phadke was permitted to operate the license "till the dispute regarding partnership is decided by the court". this review order is dated 7.4.2003. 9] much water has flown down the bridge between 2003 till october 2012 when the judgment in ..... done at page no.34, namely:- "we, therefore, hold that the respondent no.1 prabhakar wable alone is entitled to claim renewal of license from the authorities independent of the partnership firm, if same is otherwise permissible in accordance with the law." (quoted from paragraph no.24 of the judgment in lpa 146/2012 page no.34 of the ca 321 ..... no.8367/2003 in letters patent appeal no.51/2002 and maintained in the hon'ble supreme court, would govern the arrangement only until the question as to existence of partnership was to be ruled by courts and not any further. 14] in the result, the argument that the judgment suffers from error apparent on the face of record only represents .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jan-31-2013
..... as mandated under the act. plaintiffs have asserted that they have got such registration of the 1st plaintiff firm at cuttak also. maintainability of the suit as barred under section 69 (2 ..... section (4) of section 69 of the act with respect to firms or to partners in firms which have no place of business in the territories to which the aforesaid act extended. when that be so, a firm registered at jammu if it carries its business operations within the territories to which the indian partnership act, 1932 applies, has to get it registered ..... other contentions to resist the suit claim amending the original written statement, petitioners/defendants impeached the maintainability of the suit as barred under section 69 (2) of the partnership act, for short, the 'act'. plaintiffs thereupon produced documents to show that it has got registration not only in jammu and kashmir but also in cuttak, orissa. the issues relating to jurisdiction and ..... that the court has jurisdiction and also the suit is not barred under section 69 (2) of the act repelling the contentions of the petitioners/defendants, is challenged in the above revision.2. learned counsel for petitioners/defendants adverting to the partnership deeds which had been produced by the plaintiffs before the registrar of firms at jammu & kashmir, and also .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-01-2013
..... limits. the learned senior counsel submitted that on a plain reading of the provisions of sections 36 and 54 of the indian partnership act, it is clear that non-solicitation clauses always stood outside the purview of section 27 of the act.42. indian partnership act, 1930 makes provision for enabling partners to impose covenants of restraint of trade in certain cases. because of elements of mutuality ..... solicitation they have actually supplied castings. when there is such an alternative remedy, question of issuing a prohibitory injunction does not arise.41. drawing our attention to the provisions of indian partnership act - sections 36 and 54, the learned senior counsel for appellant mr.vijay narayan submitted that upon a fair interpretation of section 27 as the whole and other provisions of ..... reasonable restrictions are imposed. the business agreement between the appellant and the respondent cannot be said to be an act of partnership so as to interpret the terms of the agreement in conjunction with the provisions of indian partnership act.43. the materials produced by the appellant are not sufficient to arrive at a clear finding that the respondent solicited the customers of the ..... that non-solicitation clauses always stood outside the purview of section 27. drawing our attention to section 36(2) of the indian partnership act, the learned counsel submitted that a partner may make an agreement with his partners that on ceasing to be a partner he will not carry on any business similar .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-20-2013
..... . whether the courts below have failed to construe and interpret the provisions of sec. 63(3)(a) of the indian partnership act? 2. whether the courts below have failed to construe and interpret the provisions of sec.69 of the indian partnership act? 3. whether the courts below have erred in appreciating the facts and material evidence on record as the defendant has ..... . dave learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the suit was filed for rendition of accounts of partnership business after the partnership stood dissolved and, therefore, suit of the plaintiff was maintainable. he ..... specifically denied about any existence of a partnership and, therefore, the courts below have committed an error of law in appreciating the ..... evidence and deciding the claim of the appellant-original plaintiff with reference to sec. 69 of the indian partnership act? 6. i have heard learned advocates for the parties. mr. kirtidev r .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-20-2013
..... pleadings following issues came to be framed by justice ganoo on 13th august, 2008 which are answered as follows: issues1. do the plaintiffs prove that plaintiffs is a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act?yes2. if answer, to issue no.1 is in the negative whether the suit is maintainable?not required to be answered3. do the plaintiffs prove that the termination ..... entitled to receive and the defendant would be bound to pay reasonable expenses on account of that much construction under section 70 of the indian contract act which runs thus: 70. obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act. ?? where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other ..... .4. hence this issue is also not required to be answered. issue no.8 20. the plaintiff has not given notice u/s.164 of the maharashtra co-operative societies act, 1961. the plaintiff had to construct the society building. the business of the society is not to construct the building. the business of the society is for residential purpose since ..... of the suit agreement?notrequiredto be answered8. do the defendants prove that the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under section 164 of the maharashtra co-operative societies act, 1961?no9. what order?as per final order.3. the plaintiff has examined himself and another witness who has sought to corroborate the plaintiff's evidence. the defendants have not .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-21-2013
..... only of roop pal uberoi and harpal singh uberoi. the petitioners have filed on record form-a, register of firm maintained under section 9 of the indian partnership act where name of the partners have been shown as roop pal uberoi and harpal singh uberoi. date of registration is 07.02.1992. the respondent did ..... that he continued to be the partner in the said firm. in his statement as cw-1 recorded on 04.08.2008, he admitted that the partnership-deed showed only two partners. surprisingly, the respondent did not implead his brothers r.p.uberoi and h.s.uberoi as accused. he did not lodge ..... in 1996 to ramesh chander and necessary documents were executed in his favour on 11.03.1996 by roop pal uberoi and harpal singh uberoi. the partnership firm m/s roop pal and brothers consisted only of roop pal uberoi and harpal singh uberoi. an information was given to dsidc on 28.01. ..... . he with his brothers r.p.uberoi and h.s.uberoi formed a partnership in the name and style of m/s roop pal & brothers. the industrial plot was allotted to m/s roop pal and brothers in 1990. construction ..... it reveals that the respondent filed complaint case against the petitioners for committing offences under sections 420/468/470/471/420b read with section 378/447/446 ipc. the respondent alleged that he and his two brothers applied for an industrial plot with delhi state industrial development corporation (for short dsidc) in 1976-1977 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Mar-05-2013
..... was not a partner of m/s. ranum d. p. loundo and co. the tribunal also found that the partnership was in existence in the year 1950 without noting that the partnership firm is stated to be a partnership firm duly registered under the indian partnership act, 1956 as can be found from the cause title in case no. rent/arc/5/1994. it is common ..... knowledge that the said act was not in force in the year 1950. though the tribunal has noted that in the ..... his vehicles and therefore he is liable for eviction under section 22(2)(i) of the said rent control act. the contention of the respondents essentially was upon the fact that the petitioner had sublet the suit premises in favour of the partnership firm m/s r. d. p. loundo. it is further their contention that in view of the fact that ..... was incumbent upon the authorities below to ascertain as to whether the parking of the vehicles of the partnership firm m/s r. d. p. loundo would result in subletting within the meaning of section 22(2)(b)(i) of the rent control act. 11. in the judgment reported in 1987(3) scc 538, in the case of helper girdharbhai v/s .....Tag this Judgment!