Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-01-1999
Reported in : (2000)125PLR475
..... and in para no. 1 of the plaint it was specifically alleged by the plaintiffs that earlier they were carrying on the business of commission agency in partnership formed under the provisions of the indian partnership act under the name and style of m/s rangi ram, richha ram situated at kaithal mandhi, but the said firm has been dissolved in the year 1978 ..... the firm in the capacity of a partner. in this regard we can examine the provisions of sections 18 and 19 of the indian partnership act, 1932. section 18 of the said act lays down that subject to the provisions of this act, a partner is the agent of the firm for the purpose of the business of the firm. in the present case when ..... year 1978. there is no suggestion that rangi ram was representing himself as a partner of the firm irrespective of the dissolution. as per section 19 of the above said act, the implied authority of a partner does not empower him to compromise or relinquish any claim or portion of a claim by the firm unless mere is usage or custom .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-08-1999
Reported in : 2000(1)ALLMR592; 2000(2)BomCR140; (2000)2BOMLR466; 2000(1)MhLj529
..... orderb.h. marlapalle, j.1. the petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act, 1932 and was running a factory located ate-4, m.i.d.c. industrial area, chikalthana, aurangabad. the factory was ..... petitioner at aurangabad do not amount to an activity of manufacture. there is no dispute that the petitioner's factory is registered under the factories act, 1948 and it is carrying out manufacturing activities. we therefore, have no difficulty in holding that the material that is exported by the petitioner ..... therein. sub-section (7) of section 457 of the corporations act has empowered the corporation to make rules in respect of the assessment and recovery of taxes and accordingly the corporation has framed octroi rules under the ..... petitioner did not satisfy the requirements of rule 16(e) of the octroi rules.2. the octroi is imposed under section 147 of the corporations act on all the goods imported into the city for the purpose of consumption, use or sale therein unless they are imported for immediate exportation as provided ..... the petitioner therefore, claimed refund of octroi under rule 16 as framed under sections 454 and 457 of the bombay provincial municipal corporation act, 1949 (for short corporations act) and the claim of the petitioner was turned down by the corporation contending that the processed material exported outside the municipal corporation limits .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-21-1999
Reported in : 2000(1)ALD306
..... the averments in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:the plaintiff is the auto financing company. it has its office at hindupur carrying on business in partnership registered under the indian partnership act. the plaintiff carries on business of advancing money by way of loans for purchase of lorries and other vehicles and also gives lorries and other motor vehicles on ..... is excluded, civil courts have jurisdiction to examine whether the provisions of the act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not actedin conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. in cases where there is no express prohibition, the ..... statue are not elaborate and the power to record evidence etc., or of determining collateral fact by the authority constituted under the statute upon which the jurisdiction under the act is vested is not provided for, civil courts are not barred from entertaining a suit notwithstanding the fact that there is an express exclusion thereunder. even where the jurisdiction ..... whether the remedy of a civil suit is open to an aggrieved person to challenge an illegal order made under the statute, the alter, native remedy provided by the act must be taken into consideration. where elaborate provisions are made in the statute for alternative and adequate remedies, including provision for recording evidence and for determining facts, civil court .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-14-1999
Reported in : (2000)102BOMLR201
..... by the defendant in the written statement about the maintainability of the suit for want of registration of firm, in view of the provisions of section 69(2a) of the indian partnership act, 1932, which was obtaining on the date of framing of issues, the trial court framed issue no. 1 to the effect whether the suit was maintainable for want of registration ..... only question involved in the first appeal is whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the plaintiffs suit as not maintainable relying on section 69(2-a) of the indian partnership act, 1932.2. the appellant is the original plaintiff. he filed a suit on 14.1.1980 against the respondent, who is the original defendant in the suit, inter alia praying ..... want of registration. it was only during the pendency of the suit by maharashtra act xxix of 1984, called indian partnership (maharashtra amendment) act, 1984, various provisions of the indian partnership act were amended, including section 69. section 1 of maharashtra act xxix of 1984 provides for short title and commencement of the act by providing that it shall come into force on such date as the state government ..... plaintiff seeking dissolution of the firm and rendition of account and for ancillary reliefs on 14.1.1980. on the date of filing of the suit section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, read thus:-69. effect of non-registration.(1) no suit to enforce aright arising from a contract of conferred by this .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-09-1999
Reported in : AIR2000Bom157; 1999(4)ALLMR584; 2000(1)BomCR442; (2000)2BOMLR220; 2000(2)MhLj136
..... to share profits.'4. law is well-settled that the mode of settlement of accounts between the parties set out in section 48 of the indian partnership act is subject to agreement by the parties. the parties may agree that the mode prescribed by section 48 need not be followed with regard ..... case the award is vitiated because of non-compliance of the provisions of section 48 of the indian partnership act, 1932. the learned counsel submits that the umpire failed to take into consideration section 48 of the indian partnership act and effect of non-compliance of the same.3. we have carefully considered the above submissions ..... the above submission of the appellants. he however, found that there was no non-compliance of section 48 of the indian partnership act because the appellant had himself agreed to settlement of accounts by a mode different than the one set out in section 48. section 48 of ..... the indian partnership act reads as follows:'48. mode of settlement of accounts between partners.-in setting the accounts of a firm after dissolution, the following ..... the supreme court in asandas mitharam narsinghani v. tekchand mitharam sevakramani, 1993(3) s.c.c. 110 the supreme court held:'section 48 of the act prescribes the mode of settlement of accounts betweenthe parties. the section, however, states that the mode prescribedtherein is 'subject to agreement by the parties', in .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-09-1999
Reported in : (2000)102BOMLR220
..... submits that in the instant case the award is vitiated because of non-compliance of the provisions of section 48 of the indian partnership act, 1932. the learned counsel submits that the umpire failed to take into consideration section 48 of the indian partnership act and effect of non-compliance of the same.3. we have carefully considered the above submissions. we have perused the award ..... rejecting the arbitration petition. the learned single judge has considered the above submission of the appellants. he however, found that there was no non-compliance of section 48 of the indian partnership act because the appellant had himself agreed to settlement of accounts by a mode different than the one set out in section 48. section 48 of the ..... as follows:4. law is well-settled that the mode of settlement of accounts between the parties set out in section 48 of the indian partnership act is subject to agreement by the parties. the parties may agree that the mode prescribed by section 48 need not be followed with regard to settlement of accounts between the ..... partners.5. identical controversy came up before the supreme court in asandas mitharam narsinghani v. tekchand mitharam sevakramani : air1999sc3802 . the supreme court held:section 48 of the act prescribes the mode of settlement of accounts between the parties. the section, however, states that the mode prescribed therein is 'subject to agreement by the parties', in other words, the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-12-1999
Reported in : (2000)124PLR827
..... the defence offered by the respondent was in terms that, in fact, there was a partnership among durga dass and the respondent-tenant. it is well known that under section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932, partnership is a relation between the persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business ..... carried on by all or any of them acting for all. it is commonly being stated that it is an association ..... of persons and a compendious way of describing the said association.10. once a defence has been taken that a third person in occupation is a partner then the onus to show satisfactorily that such a business in partnership ..... that income from the said business of dry-cleaning has also been shown, mere ipsi dixit of the plea that they are doing business in partnership, therefore, cannot be believed. the learned appellate authority, therefore, misdirected itself in coming to the conclusion that the legal possession has not been parted ..... is an essential element of lease or sub-lease ...'14. as already pointed out above, the respondent-tenant has failed to establish the factum of partnership between him and durga dass. durga dass is functioning from the property and cash memos are printed in his own name as dry-cleaner. since .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-21-1999
Reported in : JT1999(10)SC558; (1999)9SCC113
..... by the respondent, a plea was taken to the effect that the suit was liable to be dismissed in view of the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act, inasmuch as the newly-added partners' names were entered by the registrar of firms on 28-2-1978 and, therefore, on the day when the suit was ..... registered with the registrar of firms originally on 29-7-1953. with the passage of time, the firm was reconstituted and as required by section 63 of the partnership act, 1932, changes in the constitution of the partners was recorded with the registrar of firms. the said section requires notice to be given to the registrar whenever ..... are the disabilities of the person, whose name does not find a place in the register of firms. for the purpose of section 69(2-a), the partnership firm will mean the firm as found in the certificate of registration and the partners as found in the register of firms maintained as per rule in form ..... patel and arvind naranji patel were partners in their individual capacity but w.e.f. 1-1-1976, they joined as huf. after the reconstitution of the partnership firm on 23-8-1976, an application was filed by the appellant with the registrar of firms for noting the change in and the reconstituted firm.4. on ..... into existence w.e.f. 1-1-1976. in any case, the firm of m/s gwalior oil mills never ceased to be a registered partnership firm. the suit was filed by the firm in 1977 and the partner who filed the plaint, namely, arvind naranji patel was admittedly a partner .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Aug-24-1999
..... suit for eviction is not maintainable and is barred under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act. it is alleged that mohanlal manjhi and brothers is a partnership firm and the same not having been registered under the partnership act, cannot maintain the suit. the defendant also denied non-payment of monthly rent to the ..... suit is for enforcement of right arising from a contract of tenancy. such a suit, therefore, cannot be barred under section 69(2) of the partnership act. the judgment and decree of the court of appeal below, therefore, cannot be sustained in law.17. in the result, this appeal is allowed. ..... unregistered firm, i am of the definite opinion that the suit for a decree of eviction is not barred under section 69(2) of the partnership act. the court of appeal below has wrongly relied upon the decision in the case of firm laduram sagarmal (supra) and in the case of ..... even then suit for eviction is maintainable by or on behalf of unregistered firm and the same is not barred under the provisions of the partnership act.9. from perusal of the judgment of the appellate court, it transpires that the court below after-re-appraising the entire evidence both oral ..... being unregistered firm cannot maintain a suit for eviction against the defendant and the same is barred under the provisions of section 69(2) of the partnership act. hence, this appeal.6. at the time of admission of this appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated:whether suit for eviction .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-10-1999
Reported in : 1999(6)ALD230; 1999(6)ALT681
..... has been shown in the register of firms as one of the partners of the firm as required in sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership act and as such the suit is not maintainable. hence this appeal by the plaintiff.3. the learned counsel for the appellant, placing reliance on the decisions of ..... case where the defendant remains ex parte and no issue is raised with regard to the fulfilment of the conditions prescribed in section 69(2) of the partnership act. the judgment of the division bench relied on by the lower court cannot, therefore, be understood as being contrary to the decisions of the learned single ..... for the purpose of determining the vacant land held by each partner. in that context the division bench merely noticed the provisions of section 69 of the partnership act and observed that as per the said section no suit shall he by or against the firm or its partners unless the firm is registered and unless ..... ex.a1 is the photostat copy of the acknowledgment of registration of firms issued by registrar offirms dated 7-7-1996. ex.a2 is the photostatcopy of partnership deed dated 1-4-1996. ex.a3 is the katha of the defendant in the ledger of the plaintiff for the year 1997-98. ex.a4 is ..... , however, does not bear out this view. the division bench mainly dealt with the question as to how the land held by a partnership firm should be dealt with for the purpose of determining the vacant land held by each partner under the provisions of the urban land (ceiling regulation .....Tag this Judgment!