Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: recent Page 2 of about 37,613 results (0.107 seconds)

Dec 13 2018 (HC)

M/S. Hindustan Infrastructure Construction Corporation Limited & Anr. ...

Court : Delhi

..... application under order vii rule 11 cpc for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred under section 69 (2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 ( the act ).3. by the impugned order, the learned adj dismissed the application of the petitioners by relying upon a judgment of the kerala high court in ..... suit is not barred under section 69(2) of is maintainable. the indian partnership act and the that it 8. in the instant case, the respondent is seeking enforcement of the liability of the petitioners created under section 30 and 37 ..... reading of the crp no.19/2018 page 3 of 4 plaint leaves no room for doubt regarding that. the bar under section 69(2)of the indian partnership act would apply only where the suit is sought to be laid on a contract and not in a case where statutory right/liability is sought to be ..... suit based on statutory liability dehors the contract between the parties. the suit cannot be held to be barred under section 69(2) of indian partnership act.11. in the circumstances, i find no reason to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the court below to the effect that the ..... inasmuch as the suit cannot be said to be not maintainable by virtue of provision of section 69 (2) of the indian partnership act. ordered accordingly.? 4. for convenience, section 69 (1) and (2) of the act reads as under :-" 69. effect of non-registration (1) no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 16 2018 (HC)

Nelofar Currimbhoy vs.perfalook International

Court : Delhi

..... signed and filed under due authority of the claimant?. opr6 whether the claims of the claimant are hit by the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932?. opr7 whether the claimant has committed a breach of first management contract dated 18.05.2010 by changing the interiors of the second floor of ..... possession of the premises on a part thereof. the first respondent continues to be in possession subject to the liability to pay rent to his landlord. the partnership deed also, as i have already stated, does not confer any such right in the premises on the other partners. i, therefore, hold in the ..... of an arbitral tribunal by reassessing or reappreciating the evidence. an award can be challenged only under the grounds mentioned in section 34(2) of the act. the arbitral tribunal has examined the facts and held that both the second respondent and the appellant are liable. the case as put forward by the ..... perverse and those which are not. if a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. but if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, howsoever ..... to use the premises while the lessee retains the legal possession is not enough to create a sub-lease. section 105 of the transfer of property act defines a lease of immovable property as to transfer of right to enjoy such property. therefore to create a lease or sub-lease a right .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 31 2018 (HC)

M/S High Groung Enterprises Ltd. Vs.rama Krishna Electro Components Pv ...

Court : Delhi

..... essence of this agreement.8. this agreement shall not constitute a partnership between both the payer and receiver and none of the parties hereto shall act/and or hold out as the agent or the partner of the other parties hereto within indian partnership act, 1932. the meaning of the 9. the agreement shall also ..... separate proceedings. proceedings for recovery of money under order xxxvii of the code are civil proceedings, whereas proceedings under section 138 of the n.i. act are primarily criminal proceedings.5. for the sake of clarity, we would reproduce the entire mou itself, which reads as under:-" whereas both the ..... does not bother us and has to be rejected for the simple reason that mere pendency of complaints under section 138 of the n.i. act for dishonoured cheques cannot be a ground to grant leave to defend in a suit under order xxxvii of the code. the two proceedings are ..... were specifically raised in the application for leave to defend. lastly, the respondent-plaintiff has filed complaints under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1882, ('n.i. act' for short) against the appellant- defendant and others which are rfa(os)(comm) 19/2018 page 2 of 7 pending. the decision could ..... code of civil procedure, 1908 (code, for short) and section 13 of the commercial courts, commercial division and commercial appellate division of high courts act, 2015 impugns order dated 23rd july, 2018 passed in ia no.21843/2014 in cs(comm) no.599/2017.2. the aforesaid order dismisses the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 17 2018 (HC)

Rakesh Kanaujia vs.m/s Superwhite Drycleaners & Anr

Court : Delhi

..... phool chand and the respondent no.2/defendant no.2, on the death of the father sh. phool chand the partnership firm would stand dissolved in view of section 42 of the indian partnership act, 1932. trial court has rightly discussed this rfa no.665/2018 page 18 of 22 aspect in paras 13 to ..... of 22 shoes for all intents and purposes and be declared as a partner in defendant no:1. firm. partnership is a contractual relationship and is defined in section 2 of the indian partnership act, 1932 as 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. the persons who have entered into partnership with one another are individually referred to as partners ..... 15 of its judgment and these paras are already reproduced above.11. in the present case admittedly the father sh. phool chand expired on 1.1.2004. on the death of the father, the partnership ..... within three years of the death of the father, and as per article 5 of the schedule to the limitation act any suit for a share in the profits of a dissolved partnership firm is to be instituted within three years of the date of dissolution. the question of limitation in the facts .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 19 2018 (HC)

Jyoti Gupta vs.kewalsons & Ors.

Court : Delhi

..... ?. arb. p. 599/2017 page 9 11. the supreme court noted section 40 of the arbitration act, 1999 and sections 46, 47 and 48 of the indian partnership act. section 40(1) of the arbitration act, 1999 sets out that an arbitration agreement shall not be discharged by the death of any party thereto either as respects the ..... event be enforceable by or against the legal representative of the deceased. after considering the provisions of the indian partnership act and section 40 of the arbitration act, 1999 and also noticing the definition of legal representative in section 2(1)(g) of the arbitration act, the court held as under: 21. the definition of legal representative became necessary because such representatives are ..... act, 1999, the petitioner is entitled to claim appointment of arbitrator under the arbitration clause of the partnership deed and the hon'ble chief justice of the allahabad high court has erred in overlooking these provisions ..... entitled to invoke arbitration clause contained in the partnership deed?. (b) whether the arbitration can be commenced by the heirs after the death of partner especially where the dispute had arisen already during the lifetime of the partner?. (c) whether in view of section 46 read with section 48 of the indian partnership act as well as section 40 of the arbitration .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 09 2018 (HC)

Naresh Kumar Bansal vs.trimurthi Hightech Co Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Court : Delhi

..... gupta, naresh kumar bansal, pawan kumar gupta and manoj gupta. therefore, it cannot be said that the suit is defective for non-compliance of section 69 of indian partnership act, 1932. ex.pwis authority letter dated 25.05.2012 by which other three partners namely pawan kumar gupta, naresh gupta and manoj gupta have authorized mr. naresh ..... in its present form and is liable to be rejected?. opd.5. whether the suit of the plaintiff is defective as per provisions of sec. 69 of indian partnership act, 1932 and is liable to be dismissed?. opd.6. whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as no cause of action has arisen for filing ..... of firm m/s enpeecon.14. here it would be profitable to refer to sub sections (1) & (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 which read as under:-" section 69 effect of non-registration.- (1) no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this ..... institution of the suit and the registration certificate of r.f.a. 386/2017 page 6 of 16 the partnership firm has not been filed and therefore, the suit is barred under section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932. it is also pleaded that the appellant/plaintiff being a partner of the firm has no locus ..... they have made the payment of the material supplied to them.20. in this regard, it would be relevant to refer to section 102 of the indian evidence act, 1872 which reads as under:-"r.f.a. 386/2017 page 10 of 16 section 102 on whom burden of proof lies.- the burden of proof .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2018 (HC)

Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited vs.malvinder Mohan Singh and Ors

Court : Delhi

..... to the suit. section 30 of the indian partnership act provides that a minor is not personally liable for any acts of the partners or of the partnership for his share in the firm.132. similarly, under the hindu minority and guardianship act a natural guardian can do such acts which are necessary and reasonable and appropriate ..... of actual damages must be proved by bringing on record books of account and other relevant documents.109. sections 55 and 73 of the indian contract act do not lay down the mode and manner as to how and in what manner the computation of damages or compensation has to be made ..... is, however, unnecessary for us to go into authorities on english law for it all comes back to this that under section 19 of the indian contract act the plaintiffs at most can only be entitled to be put in the same position as if the representation that was made had been true, ..... of both the parties is that damages, if fraud was proved, had to be quantified as provided under section 19 of the indian contract act, 1872.36. section 19 of the contract act reads as follows:-""19. voidability of agreements without free consent. when consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, 1[***]. ..... ranbaxy. it is further pleaded that elements of active concealment are not made out in terms of section 17 of the indian contract act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the contract act). further, the respondent has suffered no loss direct or indirect as a result of the alleged active concealment and wrong doing .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2017 (HC)

The Tabocco Institute of India Vs. Union of India

Court : Karnataka

..... singh & s.r.dodawad, advs.) in w.p.nos.103797 & 103977/2016: between:1. mangalore ganesh beedi work, rep. by gopinath shenoy, a registered partnership firm, duly registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 and having its head office at vinoba road, mysore-570005. and having its depot/trading centre at m/s shree jagannath traders, "srinidhi" building, 2nd ..... asg along with sri aditya singh & s.r.dodawad, advs.) in w.p.no.103520/2016: between: fasttrack packers pvt. ltd., a company incorporated under the provisions of the indian companies act, having its place of business at survey no.165, cmc no.126, 180, 15-110, old p.b. road near bus stand, nipani, taluka chikodi-591237, district belagavi, ..... s.badawadagi, adv. for impleading applicant in i.a.2/16) in w.p.101879/2016: between: ghodawat foods international pvt. ltd., a company incorporated under the provisions of the indian companies act, and having its registered office at plot no.436 & 437, chipri-416 101, kolhapur, maharashtra and having its factory at1051a & b, kotagondahunshi village, post adargunchi, taluka hubli, ..... asg, along with sri aditya singh & s.r.dodawad, advs.) in w.p.no.100996/2016: between: ghodawat industries (i) pvt. ltd., a company incorporated under the provisions of the indian companies act and having its registered office at plot no.438, chipri-416 101, kholapur, maharashtra, and having its factory at1051a & b, kotagondahunshi village, post: adargunchi, tq: hubballi, dist: dharwad, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 2017 (HC)

Madan Lal Khurana & Ors. Vs.santosh Khurana & Ors.

Court : Delhi

..... argued that the suit property was in fact purchased out of the joint funds of the partnership being carried between the appellant no.1/defendant no.1 and his father and therefore section 14 of the indian partnership act, 1932 applied however once again this argument is completely baseless because as already stated above ..... is entitled to mesne profits and if so, (a) whether property no.172 jagriti enclave ip extension new delhi was acquired from the funds of the partnership firm m/s khurana traders and effect thereof?. opd (b) whether the defendants are not barred from taking the plea that the property no.172 jagriti ..... the name of the respondent no.1/plaintiff was barred by the provision of section 2(9)(a) read with section 4 of the benami act.11. learned counsel for the appellants/defendants then argued that respondent no.1/plaintiff failed to prove that appellants/defendants were licencees and once again ..... rfa no.1008/2017 page 6 of 10 other reason as found in the aforesaid exceptions contained in section 2(9)(a) of the benami act. 8.(i) learned counsel for the appellants/defendants argued that the appellants/defendants had an interim order in their favour which was violated by the ..... enclave ip extension new delhi is not owned by the plaintiff in view of the provisions of benami transaction (prohibition) act, 1988?. opd (c) whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of the first floor of the property bearing no.172, jagriti enclave ip .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 24 2017 (HC)

Sri. K. G. Nanjundaiah Vs. Sri. P. C. Rajanna

Court : Karnataka

..... town in the land belonging to the petitioner/plaintiff and respondent no.3/defendant no.3. accordingly, they constituted a partnership firm under the name and style m/s.sri siddalingeswahra rice mill on 27.03.1989 as per the provisions of indian partnership act, which was duly registered with the registrar of firms.3. it is the further case of the plaintiff that ..... though in the partnership firm, it is mentioned that the management of the firm shall be looked after by the plaintiff, but the ..... , the trial court held that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable, in view of arbitration clause 17 of the partnership deed and referred the dispute to the arbitration under section 8 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996. hence, the present writ petition is filed.7. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.8 ..... impugned order passed by the trial court holding that the suit is not maintainable in view of arbitration clause 17 of the partnership deed and referring the matter to the arbitration under section 8 of 9 the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case?. 11. i have given my anxious consideration to the arguments .....

Tag this Judgment!


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