Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: recent Year: 2017 Page 1 of about 179 results (0.065 seconds)

Dec 15 2017 (HC)

The Tabocco Institute of India Vs. Union of India

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-15-2017

..... 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

Decided on : Dec-08-2017

..... 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

Decided on : Nov-24-2017

..... 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!

Nov 01 2017 (HC)

Ashapura Minechem Ltd. Vs.union of India and Ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-01-2017

..... indian partnership act, 1932, the central excise act, 1944, customs act, 1962, income-tax act, 1961, the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993, the finance act, 1994, the securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest act, 2002, the sick industrial companies (special provisions) repeal act, 2003, the payment and settlement systems act, 2007, the limited liability partnership act ..... , 2008, and the companies act, 2013.5. the ..... fixed time limits. the objective of the code is to consolidate and amend the laws relating to insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals in a time bound manner for maximization of value of assets of such persons, to promote entrepreneurship, availability of ..... act, 1920 and is dealt with by the courts. the existing framework for insolvency and bankruptcy is inadequate, ineffective and results in undue delays in resolution, therefore, the proposed legislation.2. the objective of the insolvency and bankruptcy code, 2015 is to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 27 2017 (HC)

Narender Kumar Gupta vs.alka Gupta

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Oct-27-2017

..... trial court has erred in as much as passing the judgment and decree on the basis of an unregistered partnership deed contrary to the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act, which completely bar the filing of the suit as being not maintainable; the indian partnership act is mandatory in character and its effect is to render a suit by a partner in respect of ..... dissolved, as void; that partner of an that section 69 of rfa66/2007 page 4of 10 unregistered partnership firm cannot bring a suit to enforce a right arising out of a contract following under the ambit of section 69 of the indian partnership act; that the partnership itself is not sustainable in the eyes of the law as the respondent is a government employee and ..... she cannot enter into a gainful act while in the government job; that the trial court erred by ignoring the fact that the plaintiff ..... , the same is to be replied by way of document only. the oral contention cannot take the place of a document. this contention is contrary to section 91 of the indian evidence act which reads as follows:-" 91. evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of documents.--when the terms of a contract, or of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 13 2017 (HC)

Sunita Rajput vs.susheela Devi Saini & Ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Oct-13-2017

..... minor can always be admitted to the benefits of a contract. one such example is provision of section 30 of the indian partnership act, 1932 which allows a minor to be admitted to the benefits of partnership. rfa no.862/2017 page 6 of 10 10.(i) learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has again argued that ..... trust or by the defendant nos. 1 to 3 in a fiduciary capacity. therefore, even second exception contained in section 4(3) of the benami act is not available to the appellant/plaintiff.9. i may note that the court below has referred to the subject sale deed dated 7.12.1959, ..... found recorded in various records including public records. appellant/plaintiff therefore cannot have the benefit of the exception contained in section 4(3) of the benami act that the suit property should not be held to be a benami property but should be held to be huf property. rfa no.862/2017 page ..... a reading of the plaint shows that there is no cause of action pleaded of the suit property being inherited prior to passing of the hindu succession act, 1956 or that the suit property was thrown into a common hotchpotch on a particular date, month and year. also, in any case even assuming ..... opp whether the property bearing number d-16, green park, new delhi was 1 2. benami property of late mr. waryam singh?. opp3 bemani transaction (prohibition) act, 1988?. opd4 parties?. opp5 relief. whether the claim of the plaintiff is barred under the provisions of whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition, if so, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 22 2017 (HC)

Chiranjilal Bajoria and Ors. Vs. Sudhir Jalan and Ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Sep-22-2017

..... the hon ble supreme court in addanki narayanappa and anr v. bhaskara krishnappa and ors.reported at air1966sc1300in which sections 14,15, 29, 32, 37, 38 and 48 of the indian partnership act were elaborately discussed. it is submitted that in the said decision it has been clearly stated that whatever may be the character of the property which is brought in by ..... interfere with the surviving partner s right to deal with and dispose of any such assets in the purpose of realisation. mr.mitra has referred to section 37 of the indian partnership act, 1932 and submits that if at the trial it is established that notwithstanding the death of deokinandan jalan, the surviving or continuing partners carry on the business of the firm ..... the partners constituting the firm. a firm under the general law has no distinct legal entity and has no legal existence of its own. section 5 of the indian partnership act recognizes that the relation of partnership arises from contract and not from statute. it arises only from a voluntary agreement and is not created by statute or obtained by birth. there are few ..... compensation and from the bihar government on the accounts being settled and upon discharge of the liabilities. this relief is based on section 46 of the indian partnership act, 1932. it is submitted that section 46 recognised that even a representative of the deceased partners will have the right to have the property of the firm applied in payment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 05 2017 (HC)

Sesa International Limited Vs. Avani Projects and Infrastructure Limit ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Sep-05-2017

..... does not convert the relationship between the parties as anything other than the relationship between the partners.the question is whether a single venture agreement can be a partnership. section 8 of the indian partnership act deals with such a situation. section 8 makes it clear that a person may become a partner with any person in particular adventure or undertaking. therefore, the term ..... is clear that the said agreement demonstrates the relationship between the persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business. if the definition of the partnership as given under section 4 of the indian partnership act is analysed, it will be clear that it has three components: a) agreement must be entered into by all persons; b) agreement must be to ..... ltd.versus cityscape developers pvt.ltd., a.p.no.237 of 1998. mr.mitra has relied upon the following passages from the said decision in support of his submission:- partnership has been defined under section 4 of the indian partnership act as the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them ..... business, which has been used in section 4 of the said indian partnership act, may consist of even a single commercial adventure on which the parties may embark. such instances of a particular partnership may take various forms including the development of a parcel of land. (see the judgment of the division bench of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 31 2017 (SC)

M/S. Innoventive Industries Ltd Vs. Icici Bank

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-31-2017

..... indian partnership act, 1932, the central excise act, 1944, customs act, 1962, income-tax act, 1961, the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993, the finance act, 1994, the securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest act, 2002, the sick industrial companies (special provisions) repeal act, 2003, the payment and settlement systems act, 2007, the limited liability partnership act ..... , 2008, and the companies act, 2013.5. the code seeks to achieve ..... , assuming that it was probably intended to leave it unaltered... by from inquiring how the we must therefore construe the provisions of the indian forming a code income-tax act as 93 complete in itself and exhaustive of the matters dealt with therein, and ascertain what their true scope is. (at page585) similarly ..... of u.p. [(1957) scr423 where this court was considering the question of the inconsistency between the two central enactments, namely, the indian penal code and the prevention of corruption act held that there was no inconsistency and observed as follows:- it seems to us, therefore, that the two offences are distinct and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 30 2017 (HC)

Sanjay Singh and Anr. Vs. Hindustan Unilever Limited

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Aug-30-2017

..... these facets need detailed enquiry and evidence. it is unregistered till this date in view of the disputes between the parties. the submission revolving around section 69 (2) of the indian partnership act cannot be the foundation to reject the plaint, in the present stage. (10) i have considered the respective contentions of the parties. (11) it is an undisputed fact that sanjay ..... bricks. production of fly ash bricks was contemplated under the contract and the claim arises out of the contract. therefore, the suit is barred under sec. 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 and the submissions including the cases cited by the plaintiff-respondent cannot be accepted. the plea of statutory right taken by the plaintiff is not applicable in view of ..... defendant. the plaintiffs have instituted the suit as partners of the said firm. however, the said firm is unregistered. hence, the suit is barred under sec. 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 (in short ipa ) which bars a suit on behalf of a firm against any third party to enforce a contractual right unless the firm is registered and the persons ..... products of the defendant only inasmuch as the application was also in respect of dets , an abbreviation for detergents. . (14) the plaintiffs in the name of the said partnership firm continued to act as redistribution stockist of the defendant in respect of detergent products. (45j.in the premises aforesaid, by reason of the wrongful termination of the contract and/or wrongful and .....

Tag this Judgment!


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