Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-17-2013
..... rudradeb chowdhuri, appearing for the proposed defendants, on a query from the court, fairly submitted that the respondent no.1 was a partnership firm duly registered under the indian partnership act, 1932 and that the defendant nos.2 to 4 were the partners of the defendant no.1 and, that apart from the defendant ..... corporation proceeded on the basis that ball roll corporation was a partnership firm. both the appellant/plaintiff as well as ball roll corporation were assessed by the central excise authorities on the transactions between them. ..... filed the suit claiming that sums remained outstanding due and payable by ball roll corporation to it. ball roll corporation admittedly was a registered partnership firm of which the proposed defendant nos.2 to 4 were partners.before the revenue authorities the appellant/plaintiff as well as the ball roll ..... sole proprietorship firm of gopal rathi (a person who was not a partner of the firm) be allowed to be correctly described as a partnership firm of the defendant no.2 to 4 by the application for amendment when the claim of the plaintiff was contended to be barred by ..... , would change the nature and character of the suit. the amendments, if allowed, would convert a suit against a proprietorship concern to one against a partnership firm. he relied on all india reporter 1953 supreme court page 455 (the commissioner of income tax, west bengal v. m/s.a.w.figgis .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-19-2013
..... of profit or payment of contingent does not make a person partner of the firm. as per section 69 of indian partnership act no suit to inference any right arising from contract shall be instituted by or on behalf of any person suing as partner in the firm against the firm or any ..... was entitled to a declaration that she has the right to continue in possession of the suit property till the dissolution of the partnership firm. in support of his argument, learned senior counsel referred to section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 and the judgment of this court in jagdish chander gupta v. kajaria traders (india) ltd. 1964 (8) scr50and of the calcutta ..... /88 was executed. the defendant failed to prove the existence of partnership firm by producing registered partnership deed on record. the partnership deed produced on record by the defendant are not registered documents as per section 17 of indian partnership act. the documents of partnership is compulsorily registerable. section 6 of indian partnership provides mode of determining existence of partnership. it is specifically provided in this section that mere sharing .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-10-2013
..... of firm would also discloses that the registrar of firms, andhra pradesh, acknowledges the receipt of the statement prescribed under section 58(1) of indian partnership act.13. at this stage, the learned counsel for the respondent objected for looking into the said document by contending that the plea taken by the ..... of registration of firms issued by the registrar of firms, dated 19.11.2007 establish that sri sai santhosh constructions was represented as a partnership firm in the year 2007 itself. therefore, there is no irregularity or illegality in petitioner issuing the cheque as an authorized signatory of the ..... by him, wherein the petitioner was portrayed as a sole proprietress of sai santosh constructions, it cannot, now, be contended that it is a partnership firm. since the issues involved herein are disputed questions of fact, he submits that the same have to be established during the course of trial ..... determination is whether the petitioner is a proprietress of a firm or a managing partner of a partnership firm?.10. before proceeding further, it would be relevant to extract section 138(c) of the act which reads as under:- provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless:- (c) ..... taken in sheoratan agarwal v. state of m.p.6, and clarifying judgment in anil hada v. indian acylic ltd7, held that for maintaining a prosecution under section 141 of the act, arraying of a company as an accused is imperative and other categories of offenders can only be brought .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-10-2013
..... has failed to appear: provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the provisions of section 30 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (9 of 1932). (2) where the decree-holder claims to be entitled to cause the decree to be executed against any person ..... between the judgement-debtor firm and the union of india, such that in consonance with the general principle laid out in section 25 of the partnership act he can be made personally liable. accordingly, unless the claim of the decreeholder that the decree should be passed against the partners personally has ..... referred to provisions efa (os) 36/2013 page 12 of section 32(2) of the partnership act, which provides that a retiring partner may be discharged from any liability to a third party for acts of the firm done before his retirement by an agreement made by him with such third party ..... learned single judge, nor in the present appeal proceedings has mr. jhunjhunwala raised any questions as to this document, or even generally as to his partnership at the time of signing the contract, and thus, his liability.12. rather, the primary argument put forward by mr. jhunjhunwala is that the ..... this court is established. further, learned counsel submits that the judgment-debtor firm named mr. jhunjunwala, the appellant/petitioner, as a partner in the partnership deed submitted to the railway board vide letter dated 11.05.1987 at the time of awarding the contract. moreover, in similar terms, the judgement-debtor .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
Decided on : Oct-01-2013
..... had been filed within the limitation period. with regard to the first question it is seen from agreement placed on record that it was between sayali builders, a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act of 1932 and the petitioner. it is clearly mentioned in the agreement that agreement of development dated 20.06.1987 executed between shri eknath daduji nikam, shri shanatram ..... joined as parties, the things could have been looked with difference but, it is not the case before us. considering the provisions of indian partnership act, inter se relationship between the partners of a firm is governed by the partnership agreement. therefore, to file a consumer complaint in the personal name of the opponent and that to describe him as a builder and developer ..... eknath nigam and sou sadhana shantaram nikam constitutes parternship firm between shri eknath daduji nikam owner of the land and the builder shri vivek gajanand joshi by the deed of partnership ..... .e., the other partner of sayali builder breathed his last on 06.05.1998 and the firm sayali builders had only two partners and as per section 42 of the partnership act with the demise of one partner the firm is dissolved and only mr. vivek gajanand joshi (respondent) was left who can sue or be sued. the state commission has .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-26-2013
..... 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!
Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
Decided on : Sep-25-2013
k.s. chaudhari, presiding member this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 28.07.2011 passed by the maharashtra state consumer disputes redressal commission, mumbai, (in short, the state commission) in appeal no. a/11/574 gopinath nagar vs. m/s. nandan builders and ors. by which, appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed at admission stage. 2. brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner filed complaint before district forum and prayed for direction to the op/respondent to execute deed of convenience in favour of the complainant no.1/society and further direction to ops to complete the incomplete work and further prayed for compensation along with interest. learned district forum partly allowed the complaint and directed op to execute conveyance deed, but did not grant other reliefs against which, appeal filed by the complainant/petitioner was not admitted against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay. 3. heard learned counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record. 4. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of financial crunch, revision petition could not be filed in time; hence, delay in filing revision petition be condoned. 5. in the application for condonation of delay, period of delay to be condoned has not been mentioned, but as per office report, there is delay of 372 days in filing revision petition. paragraph .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-17-2013
..... of the private respondents, however, it has been submitted that the licence in this case was granted in favour of a partnership firm and under the provisions of section 42 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the firm stood dissolved on death of said madhusudan dey. the aforesaid provisions stipulates:- 42. dissolution of the happening ..... the documents which are required to be filed on behalf of the firm. on the other hand, under section 18 of the partnership act 1932, each partner of the firm is entitled to act as agent of other partner/partners. 7. on the same issue, there is an authority of this court (w.p. ..... of the food & supplies department, government of west bengal, for revalidation or renewal of the licence, which was originally issued in the name of the partnership concern. in such circumstances, the writ petitioner s prayer to allow her to continue to run the fair price shop under amherst street sub-area in ..... in existence so long as the will of those individuals to remain joined as partners subsists. in the absence of such will to continue with the partnership agreement, the same shall stand dissolved automatically. in the facts of the instant case, as observed hereinbefore, the legal heirs of the deceased partner ..... no.4443 (w) of 2011 godabari devi vs. the state of west bengal & ors. decided on 08.02.2013) and in this judgment it has been held:- a partnership concern, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-13-2013
..... certified copy of the registration annexure-a-8c, and, therefore, prima-facie it is seen that the firm is registered in accordance to the requirement of section 59 of the indian partnership act. a.c.no.23/2010 peekay enterprises versus northern coalfields lmt. & ors.so far as delay in raising claim is concerned, the same warrants enquiry into factual aspect of the ..... . it is further clarified that all the objections raised by respondent no.1 with regard to delay in raising the claim and the question of registration or otherwise of the partnership firm is to be decided by the arbitrator, after hearing all concerned in accordance with law. with the aforesaid, the application is allowed and disposed of. (rajendra menon) judge nd ..... smt. amrit ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner. shri greeshm jain, learned counsel for the respondents. this is an application filed under section 11 (6) of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitral tribunal for adjudication of the dispute that has risen between the parties. an agreement annexure-a1 was entered into between the parties on 22 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-05-2013
..... petitioners are not liable to be proceeded against, for any criminal liability in the matter. as per section 30(3) of the indian partnership act, a minor who is admitted as a partner is not personally liable, for any liability or any acts of the firm, which cause any liability. matters being so, the crl.m.c.no. 224 o 5. proceedings against the ..... the same crl.m.c.no. 224 o 4. time, petitioners 1 and 2, who were falsely admitted in the said partnership deed, are entitled to the protection under section 30(3) of the indian partnership act as well as under section 82 of the indian penal code, as they were under the age of seven, even at the time of the constitution of the ..... has been produced as annexure-a2 which reveals that these petitioners were admitted as partners 8, 9 and 10 in the partnership deed and they were styled as minors. of course, as per section 30(1) of the indian partnership act, 1932, minors can also be admitted as partners of the firm with the consent of all the other partners at the time being ..... partnership. as far as the third petitioner is concerned, he was not even born, when he was admitted as a partner by styling .....Tag this Judgment!