Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: recent Court: chhattisgarh Page 1 of about 16 results (0.015 seconds)

Jan 04 2016 (HC)

Sunshine Caterers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tri ...

Court : Chhattisgarh

..... vide govt. of india's notification dated 20.01.1983. further the said establishment was taken over by m/s r.k. agarwal, contractor, which is a partnership firm registered under indian partnership act, 1932. m/s r.k. agarwal has taken over railway refreshment room, raipur in the year 1992 for five years and thereafter renewed the contract upto the year 2005. the ..... establishment has been registered under sales tax act, m.p. shop and establishment act, 1958. consequent upon taking over of m/s railway refreshment room, raipur by m/s r ..... the following background facts: - background facts: - 3. the petitioner is a private limited company registered under the provisions of the indian companies act and successor-in-interest of the original assessee namely m/s. r.k. agrawal and sons, a partnership firm, and is engaged in providing catering services at railway station, raipur. its work of selling food and other eatables and beverages ..... wages as defined in the law of lexicon ignoring the fact that section 2 (b) of the epf act defines basic wages and does not include commission . the appellate tribunal further went wrong in relying upon the decision of the supreme court in indian banks association (supra) which is clearly inapplicable to the facts of the present case, as in that case .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 17 2015 (HC)

M/s. C.M. Makhija Vs. The Chairman cum Managing Director, South Easter ...

Court : Chhattisgarh

..... apex court held that the arbitral proceedings would not be maintainable at the instance of an unregistered firm having regard to the mandatory provisions contained in section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932. 13. as the facts narrated earlier would indicate in the instant case, despite the objection raised there is no document has been placed on record that on the date ..... the same. it is contended that therefore it will lead to draw an inference that the firm is unregistered one. so by virtue of application of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the petition is not maintainable. he placed his reliance on jagdish chandra gupta v. kajaria traders (india) ltd., air 1964 sc 1882 and would submit that section 69(3 ..... non-applicants/s.e.c.l. filed its objection and predominantly opposition was made that the applicant is not a registered partnership firm having registration number from the register of firms and societies whereby by virtue of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, prohibits filing of a proceeding by an unregistered firm. it is contended that since the firm which invoked the ..... of filing the firm was a registered partnership. consequently, as the law laid down by their lordship, as has been discussed above, the bar of section 69(3) of the indian partnership act, 1932 would come into play whereby enforcement of right of arbitration proceeding would be blocked as the application itself .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 19 2015 (HC)

Shanti Bai Agrawal and Others Vs. Uma Bai Agarwal and Others

Court : Chhattisgarh

..... dispute. even before this court also, the respondents did not dispute the existence of firm and its dissolution. the dissolution of the firm is covered under chapter-vi of the indian partnership act, 1932. section 42 speaks about dissolution on the happening of certain contingencies. it starts with subject to contract between the partners a firm is dissolved, on certain conditions. further, section ..... any portion of the property as belonging to him, nor can he assign his interest in any specific item thereof to anyone. 17. therefore, according to section 47 of the indian partnership act, 1932, after the dissolution of a firm, the authority of each partner to bind the firm, and the other mutual rights and obligations of the partners continue notwithstanding the dissolution ..... , but not otherwise . herein the dissolution is not in dispute, therefore, the partners had only interse right between them in terms of section 47 and 48(b)(iv) of the indian partnership act to claim for the right as per the provisions of the said section. 18. therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that after dissolution of the property ..... the partners interse of m/s. gajadhar prasad kashi prasad. the partners have their interse right in terms of section 48 of the indian partnership act which could have been enforced by filing a suit to claim a share of dissolved partnership firm. 19. as observed in the aforesaid, the value of the property is to be assessed and the partners are entitled to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 19 2011 (HC)

M/S. Laxmi Construction Co. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Court : Chhattisgarh

..... of dealing between such third party and the reconstituted firm, after retirement of a partner." the above provisions of section 32 (2) of the indian partnership act, protects the right and liability of the firm and the retiring partner and in view of the above, argument raised by mr. deo is not ..... versus r. s. r. engineering works and others, (2003) 6 scc 265, the supreme court held that "under section 32(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932, the liability of the retiring partner as against third party would be discharged only if there is an agreement made by the retiring partner, with ..... experience of constituents of the joint venture company should be treated as its own experience. 8. in case on hand, the petitioner, a registered partnership firm, is having 5 partners and, according to the petitioner, its partner is having requisite experience and on this basis the petitioner applied for ..... the disposal of the company". the supreme court further observed that "the joint venture connotes a legal entity in the nature of a partnership engaged in the joint undertaking of a particular transaction for mutual profit or an association of persons or companies jointly undertaking some commercial enterprise ..... the name of the partnership firm which may not have any past experience in its own name. that does not mean that the earlier experience of one of the partners of the firm cannot be taken into consideration. similarly, a company incorporated under the companies act having past experience may .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 16 2003 (HC)

Smt. Alpana Gupta Vs. Subodh Kumar Gupta and ors.

Court : Chhattisgarh

Reported in : 2004(2)MPHT68(CG)

..... the respondents in both the petitions, are the real brothers who are the sons of late rajaram gupta. m/s. rajaram maize products, rajnandgaon, was a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act, 1932, constituted vide deed of partnership dated 01-07-1988 of which (i) late rajaram gupta, (ii) subodh kumar gupta, one of the respondents in both the petitions, (iii) suryakant gupta ..... , (iv) late shrikant gupta and (v) smt. prabha agarwal were the partners. similarly, there was one another partnership firm namely, m/s. rajaram & brothers, mandsaur which was also a registered partnership firm, constituted by a deed of partnership dated 13-08-1989 and registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. the partners of the firm were (i) late rajaram gupta, (ii) subodh kumar gupta, (iii) suryakant ..... gupta, (iv) late shrikant gupta, and (v) k.k. jindal, brother of late rajaram gupta.3. according to the petitioners, some disputes arose amongst the partners of the aforesaid two partnership firms and in order to resolve .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 02 2003 (HC)

Mecgale Pneumatics Vs. Bhilai Electrical Supply Company Limited and an ...

Court : Chhattisgarh

Reported in : AIR2004Chh5; 2004(1)CTLJ147(Chhatt); 2003(3)MPHT54(CG)

..... c. bhadoo, j.1. by this writ petition filed under article 226/227 of the constitution of india the petitioner, a registered partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act under registration no. ngp/1441/90-91 and engaged in the work of manufacturing, supplying, marketing and distribution of materials for civil, ..... of that policy is fair. it is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. the extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was not able to point out any irrational, arbitrary or procedural impropriety ..... wisdom based on their past experience decided this eligibility criteria. so their decision to fix the eligibility criteria, without any specific instance that they have acted against any rules or showing that they have committed any error of law or exceeded their powers or abused their powers while taking such decision ..... of that policy is fair. it is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. the extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be ..... of status and opportunity. every state action must be aimed at achieving this goal. every holder of a public office by virtue of which he acts on behalf of the state or public body is ultimately accountable to the people in whom the sovereignty vests. as such, all powers so vested .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 2007 (HC)

V.G. Tamaskar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.

Court : Chhattisgarh

Reported in : AIR2008Chh33

..... goods has a liabilty to pay tax impugned in the petition, each one has his own independent cause of action a firm as understood under the partnership act or a company as understood under the indian companies act, if it is entitled to commerce action either in the firm name or in the companys name, can do so by filing a petition for the ..... the petition is filed by/on behalf of a society/union then the following particulars have to be mentioned:that the society/union has been registered under the societies registration act and, if registered that the petition has been accompanied by certificate of registration, certified as true copy.that the society/union passed any resolution empowering the person through whom the ..... benefit of the company or the partnership and in such a case court fee would be payable depending upon the legal status of the petitioner. but it is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 01 2004 (HC)

Aarti Engineering Company and ors. Vs. Vijay Dwivedi and anr.

Court : Chhattisgarh

Reported in : 2005(1)MPHT19(CG)

..... the complaint'9. respondent no. 1 filed a complaint against all the petitioners and vinod mandhana under section 138 of the said act and under sections 420, 467, 471 and 120b of the ipc, stating that petitioner no. 1 is a partnership firm and petitioners no. 2 to 5 and vinod mandhana are partners thereof, who have authority to sign the cheques and ..... or the cheque issued by vinod mandhana, is a cheque issued by a incompetent person or that there is difference of signature. it is clear that if in fact the partnership firm wherein vinod mandhana was partner, was reconstituted and vinod mandhana took retirement, then either petitioners have not informed the said fact to their bankers or that still there is ..... a legal notice to the petitioners and vinod mandhana and thereafter when the debt was not made good, filed a complaint under various sections of the ipc and also under section 138 of the said act, in the court of chief judicial magistrate, durg, who after recording necessary evidence, considering complainant and documents, registered a case vide order dated 24-3-2003 ..... the petitioners alongwith another co-accused vinod mandhana under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881, (for short, 'the act') the petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 of the cr.pc for quashing the said order and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioners.2. one partnership firm - aarti engineer company, was constituted on 1-4-1994 comprising partners namely kanhaiyalal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 2015 (HC)

Chhaya Roy and Others Vs. Keshav Das R. Jadwani and Others

Court : Chhattisgarh

..... he in the capacity of a-4 category government contractor had received certain contracts from respondent no.3-firm i.e. m. dewanshi construction partnership firm relating to construction work and road construction. according to the complainant, respondent no.3-firm of which respondent no.2-subhash chandra roy ..... . as a consequence, the proceedings under section 138 of negotiable instrument act against the present petitioners in the complaint case no.236 of 2011 pending before the jmfc, raipur stands quashed and the present petitioners stand ..... court is of the view that relegating the petitioners to face the prosecution in a proceeding initiated against them under section 138 of negotiable instrument act would amount to misuse of the process of law. 16. for the foregoing reasons, the instant petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed ..... were responsible firstly for conducting of the firm s business and secondly in the issuance of the cheque. the provisions of negotiable instrument act being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. it has been held in all the above referred judgments that the person ..... that the present petitioners, who are also the accuse: persons in the complaint case moved an application under section 141 of negotiable instrument act on 12.12.2012 seeking for discharging of the criminal proceedings on the ground that they were not directly involved in the issuance of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 11 2011 (HC)

Matoshri Developers and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Court : Chhattisgarh

..... /2010 registered in police station sarsiwa, district raipur, for offences punishable under sections 420 and 120b of the indian penal code (for short "the ipc").2. the facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners, are that the petitioner no.1 is a registered partnership firm whereas the petitioner no.2 is one of the partners of the petitioner no.1. deed of ..... of complaint against the director of the company that is not relevant to the facts of the case, as the petitioner is a registered partnership firm under the provisions of the adhiniyam, 1973, therefore, the provisions of the act,1956 would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.18. the supreme court in asoke basak v. state of maharashtra ..... report is made by registrar of companies, may appoint one or more persons as inspectors to investigate into affairs of the company, under the provisions of section 237 of the act, 1956 and also other cases under the circumstances and, as such, the criminal cases registered against the petitioner society and royal vision is illegal. the notice issued to the petitioners ..... per the provisions of section 37 (2) of the chhattisgarh society registrikaran adhiniyam, 1973 (for short "the adhiniyam, 1973"), no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this act except upon complaint made by the registrar or any other person, authorized in writing by him, in this behalf, therefore, the cognizance taken by the respondent authorities against the petitioners .....

Tag this Judgment!


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