Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: recent Court: orissa Page 1 of about 143 results (0.037 seconds)

Sep 29 2014 (HC)

M/S. Mohanty and Associates and Another Vs. Officer on Special Duty an ...

Court : Orissa

..... them to continue as approved valuers.2. bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case of the petitioners are that petitioner no.1 is a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act, 1932 and petitioner no.2 is the managing partner of the said firm. the petitioners were appointed as registered valuer in respect of m/s.east end ..... officer, circle office, punjab national bank under the provisions of the right to information act for supply of detailed information. on 23.5.2014, the 2 public information officer, punjab national bank supplied information, vide annexure-11 series, wherein it is evident that the indian banks association in its letter dated 18.02.2014, found the petitioners guilty in indulging ..... petitioners were empanelled as a valuer of the opposite parties. an agreement to that effect was entered into between the petitioners and the opposite parties, vide annexure-a. the indian banks association reported the names of 25 valuers involved in the fraud. the head office punjab national bank, new delhi circulated blacklisted valuers, wherein the name of the petitioners ..... 3.5. mr.pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that before blacklisting the petitioners, no opportunity of hearing was provided to them. he further submits that the indian banks association had never called upon the petitioners to answer the charges levelled against them. the petitioners have been deprived of their vital and valuable rights to defend themselves.6 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 26 2013 (HC)

M/S. Marine Diesel Service Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and O ...

Court : Orissa

..... hearing: 17.09.2013 i. mahanty, j.date of judgment: 26.09.2013 the petitioner-m/s. marine diesel service claiming to be a registered firm, registered under the indian partnership act, has filed the present writ application with a prayer seeking direction to the opposite party (bharat petroleum corporation ltd.) no.to finalise the 2 tender of the petitioner-firm as ..... partnership being invalid, your firm failed to qualify in the technical bid. you were orally informed by the technical evaluation committee accordingly. ..... four following conditions needed to be fulfilled: (i) it must be a company, association or partnership consisting of more than twenty persons. (ii) it must no.have been registered as a company under the companies act no.must it have been formed in pursuance of some other indian law. (iii) it must have been formed for the purpose of carrying on any business ..... of carrying on any other business that has for its object the acquisition of gain by the company, association or partnership, or by the individual members thereof, unless it is registered as a company under this act, or is formed in pursuance of some other indian law. . since your partnership firm exceeded twenty partners and it was neither incorporated as a company, your .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 23 2012 (HC)

M/S.Konark Cylinders and Containers Pvt. Ltd., Rep. Vs. Suresh Gangada ...

Court : Orissa

..... 14 maintain a suit against the petitioner-company for recovery of money due from petitioner-company in view of bar under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act.17. law is well-settled that what cannot be done directly, the same cannot be done indirectly.18. law is also well settled that when ..... individuals who incidentally are doing business in the name and style of super impex .. therefore, mr. das submitted that section 69(2) of the indian partnership act has no application to the present case.11. since, both the parties referred to the plaint in support of their rival contentions, it would be ..... . and the said firm being unregistered one cannot sue the petitioner in a suit because the same is hit by section 69(2) of the indian partnership act. it was also alternatively submitted that since the transaction was between super impex and the petitioner, the partners of super impex have no locus standi ..... business in the name of the firm in question, the suit cannot be said to have been hit by any of the provisions of the indian partnership act. if the stand of the petitioner is accepted at this stage, then the defaulters can get away with their liability to pay by taking such ..... the executability of the said decree can be raised in the execution case. the decree obtained by unregistered firm in contravention of section 69 of the indian partnership act is a nullity and cannot be executed. such objection can be raised at the stage of execution. in support of his contention, he relied .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 18 2004 (HC)

Smt. Sabitri Das Vs. Gangadhar Naik and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 98(2004)CLT70

..... filed under section 8(2) of the arbitration act, 1940 vis-a-vis the provision in section 69 of the indian partnership act which prescribes some dis-entitlement to an unregistered partnership firm. the term 'other proceedings' employed in sub-section (3) of section 69 of the partnership act, was considered ejusdem generis to the term ..... 1882, in which the said maxim has been defined by as larger bench in a different manner and because of the ratio in the case of indian oil corporation ltd. v. municipal corporation and anr., air 1995 sc 1480, the ratio in the case of jagadish chandra has to supersede. ..... applying the maxim 'ejusdem generis' to the term 'other proceeding' it is profitable to refer to the cited decisions in the case of indian oil corporation ltd., (supra). it emerges from the narration of fact in that judgment that in the context of section 138 (b) of the ..... of the application for amendment, are proceedings within the meaning of section 141 of the code and therefore, notwithstanding the amendment of section 115 by act 46 of 1999 a revision is still maintainable as against the impugned judgments and orders. in that context, their argument is that the maxim ' ..... of the code inasmuch as the aforesaid title suit has been filed by the plaintiffs-opposite party claiming for maintenance under the hindu adoption and maintenance act, 1956 as the wife and daughters of the petitioner. learned civil judge has granted interim monthly maintenance of rs. 1,000/- to the wife .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 21 2004 (HC)

D.R. Associates Vs. General Manager, East Coast Railways and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : I(2005)BC10; 98(2004)CLT109; 2005(1)CTLJ146(Ori); 2004(I)OLR689

..... as required under the tender notice. in this regard it is worthwhile to have a look at the provisions of the indian partnership act, particularly, section 14, which speaks as follows :'section 14. the property of the firm : subject to contract between the partners, the property of the firm includes all ..... enumeratesas follows :'section 8. particular partnership : a person maybecome a partner with another person in particular adventuresor undertakings.'relying upon the aforesaid provisions of the partnership act, mr. palit, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the very purpose of formation of ..... over of the partnership. according to thelearned counsel for the opp. parties, the deed of reconstitutingthe partnership was executed on 10.4.2003, just little more thanone month before the tender notice was published, for the purposeof participating in the tender.5. learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard takes usthrough section 8 of the indian partnership act, 1932, which ..... be the separate property of one of the partners. where a partner brings certain property into the common stock as part of his capital, it becomes the partnership property. likewise, the partnership act has specifically included the goodwill among the partners of the firm subject to any contract between the partners, in all accounts for determining the shares. so, whether .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 07 2002 (HC)

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

Court : Orissa

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!

May 19 1995 (HC)

Manoj Ranjan Patnaik and ors. Vs. Sangram Keshari Patnaik and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 1995(II)OLR167

..... 10. in the case at hand the dissolved firm was an unregistered one and therefore provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932. are applicable. therefore, it has to be seen whether any of the partners of the dissolved firm has got any remedy under the ..... -section(4). thus this court also had given effect to the exceptions carved out by sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 69 of the partnership act from the prohibition imposed by sub-sections (1) and (2)and main part of section (3) even though the firm was not registered under section 69 ..... as follows:learned counsel for the appellants also urged, that, if we take the above view of the provisions contained in section 69(3) of the partnership, act. it would leave the appellants without any remedy whatsoever. it was urged that this could never be the: intention of the legislature. learned counsel further ..... challenging the order of the high court, special leave application was filed in the apex court. considering section 69(3) of the partnership act and section 20 of the arbitration act and the ratio of air 1964 sc 1882 (supra), their lordships held as follows :'undoubtedly, section 69(1) prohibits laying the suit ..... sri laxmi narayan padhi v. sri bhaskar panda, his lordship while considering the scope and ambit of section 69(3) of the partnership act vis-a-vis section 20 of the arbitration act. has opined that sub-section (3) is not. applicable to arbitration proceeding. 'other proceeding' are saved from the purview of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 22 1994 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rabindranath Bhol

Court : Orissa

Reported in : [1995]211ITR799(Orissa)

..... , the business is carried on by each of the partners, and the definition of a partnership in the partnership act has been incorporated in the indian income-tax act, in section 2(6b). . . .'6. a partnership as defined in section 4 of the indian partnership act is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them ..... acting for all. therefore, when a firm carries on business, it is business carried on by the ..... partners of that firm. one partner is the agent of the other in carrying out that business. consequently, when a partnership ..... in the premises of one of the partners, the said partner, as an individual, would be entitled to the exemption under section 22. on examination of the provisions of the partnership act as well as relying upon the decision of the bombay high court in the case of shantikumar narottam morarji v. cit : [1955]27itr69(bom) , it was held that when a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 22 1993 (HC)

Dayanidhi Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa and anr.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 75(1993)CLT789; 1993(I)OLR358

..... merely registered for some purposes under the companies act does not owe its existence to the companies act. it merely is governed by some provisions of the companies act. if the submission of shri patnaik were to be taken to its logical conclusion, even partnership firms registered under the indian partnership act, 1932 shall have to be regarded as ..... salaried employee.12. shri nanda then contends that the petitioner cannot be said to be an 'officer' as defined in section 2(3) of the indian companies act, 1956 because of which he is not one of the persons who can appear on behalf of the company. this submission is not much relevant ..... of a statutory provision. to the same effect are the decisions in u. p. state warehousing corporation v. c. k. tyagi, air 1970 sc 1244 and indian airlines corporation v. sukhdeo rai, air 1971 sc 1828. the matter was exhaustively dealt in sirsi municipality v. c. k. p. tellis, air 1973 sc ..... also would show that he was 'conducting his practice'' and not really serving the company which aspect of the matter had been taken note of in indian sulphacide's case (supra) by the punjab and haryana high court because of which the advocate was not regarded to be a workman. as to ..... the position of an officer of the appellant.7. shri nanda has referred to a single judge decision of the punjab and haryana high court in indian sulphacide industries v. labour court, (1992) 65 flr 705, in which a practising advocate engaged by a company on retainarship basis was not hold .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 22 1991 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T. Omer and Company

Court : Orissa

Reported in : (1992)102CTR(Ori)36; [1992]196ITR736(Orissa)

..... any part in the specified item of the property did not arise. the contention of learned standing counsel appears to be legally sound.5. a partnership-firm under the indian partnership act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as 'the partnership act'), is not a distinct legal entity apart from the partners constituting it and equally in law the firm as such has no separate rights of its ..... own in the partnership assets and when one talks of the firm's property or the firm's assets, all that is meant is property or assets ..... partner may assign his share to another. but what is permissible in that regard is laid down in section 29(1) of the partnership act, that is to say, the right to receive the share of profits of the assignor and accept the account of profits agreed to by the partners. a similar view expressed ..... have a joint or common interest, (see malabar fisheries co. v. cit : [1979]120itr49(sc) .)6. the provisions of sections 14, 15, 29, 32, 37, 38 and 48 of the partnership act, 1932, make it clear that whatever may be the character of the property which is brought in by the partners when the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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