Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 2003 Page 1 of about 249 results (0.146 seconds)

Mar 25 2003 (HC)

Mr. (Sic)qassim Mohd. Yousuf Aquil Bastaki Vs. Smt. Sultana Abdul Ahad ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-25-2003

Reported in : 2003(3)ALLMR915; 2003(3)ARBLR75(Bom); 2003(5)BomCR807; 2003(3)MhLj373

..... running business of a hotel.4. the first issue, therefore, with which we are concerned, is whether an application under section 9 of the act of 1996 is maintainable considering section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1996. the partnership agreement contains a clause for arbitration. the petitioners herein have not moved this court or judicial forum for referring the disputes to arbitration. the petitioners ..... the year 1990 was registered on 28th may, 1990. this has been so pointed out, considering section 69 of the indian partnership act as amended in the state of maharashtra. it is contended that this court would have no jurisdiction to hear and entertain the present petition. if that be so, reliefs as ..... have come before this court to protect the assets of the partnership pending decision by the arbitral tribunal consequent upon dissolution of the partnership. the arbitral clause was invoked .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 2003 (SC)

Pamuru Vishnu Vinodh Reddy Vs. Chillakuru Chandrasekhara Reddy and ors ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-17-2003

Reported in : AIR2003SC1614; 2003(2)ALLMR(SC)373; 2003(2)SCALE242; (2003)3SCC445; [2003]2SCR57; 2003(2)LC820(SC)

..... in payment of his financial entitlement, he is entitled to interest at the rate of six per cent per annum in the property of the firm. section 37 of the indian partnership act also says that in the case of an outgoing partner, he is entitled to such share of the profits made since he ceased to be a partner as may be ..... court itself to decide date taking into account that his share was not paid till now. .....'9. we think it necessary to notice sections 32, 37 and 48 of the indian partnership act which read:-'32. retirement of a partner - (1) a partner may retire,- (a) with the consent of all the other partners,(b) in accordance with an express agreement by the ..... the said judgment in a.s. no. 481/1979 read as under:-'once we hold that the retirement was obtained by consent of all partners section 32(a) of the partnership act is attracted and a retirement with the consent of all the other partners can be effected without dissolution. the failure on the part of the remaining partners to settle the ..... . such disputes are to be resolved keeping in view the facts of each case having dur regard to section 37 of the act. section 48 deals with the mode of settlement of accounts between the partners after dissolution of the partnership firm.10. in this backdrop, now we take up the question for consideration set out above.11. the findings as recorded .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 09 2003 (SC)

Syndicate Bank Vs. R.S.R. Engineering Works and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-09-2003

Reported in : 2003(4)ALD62(SC); 2003(51)BLJR1677; [2003(3)JCR162(SC)]; JT2003(4)SC578; (2003)134PLR570; 2003(4)SCALE648; (2003)6SCC265

..... was given to the plaintiff, but the appellant bank did not raise any objection and, therefore, it was urged that under section 32(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932, respondent nos. 2 and 3 are not liable for any payment under suit. the learned counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, ..... & 4 is not binding on the appellant bank. the contention of the appellant is that in view of sub-section 3 of section 32 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 cannot escape the liability as regard the suit claims madeby the appellant.5. at the time when the ..... firm as envisaged under section 32(3) of the indian partnership act. respondent nos. 2 and 3 have contended that the appellant was aware of the dissolution of the partnership but that by itself will not absolve the liability of the retiring partners. section 32 of the indian partnership act, 1932, reads as follow:-'32 retirement of a ..... partner. (1) a partner may retire:- (a) with the consent off all the other partners. (b) in accordance with the express agreement by the partners, or (c) where the partnership is at will, by giving notice ..... 2 and 3. it is also pertinent to note that there was no public notice under sub-section (3) of section 32 of the ndian partnership act by respondent nos. 2 and 3. even if there was a public notice, it may not alter the position as the alleged liabilities of respondent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 2003 (HC)

Bhangaru Packaging Co., Rep. by Its Proprietor, M. Madhusudan Rao Vs. ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-03-2003

Reported in : 2003(1)ALD(Cri)679; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)497; III(2003)BC352; 2003CriLJ2498

..... the petitioner has no application to the present set of facts, because in that case the complainant-firm was not at all registered under the indian partnership act by the date of issuance of the cheque therein. 8. the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations in the ..... reliance can be placed upon this document at this stage for the simple reason that it was not registered as required under the provisions of the indian partnership act. so, by the date of issuance of the cheque in question, whether marvel organics was registered or not has to be decided at the ..... firm was entered in the registrar of firms on 27.8.1991 and, therefore, there is no bar under the provisions of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act. therefore, he prays, the petition be dismissed. 4. a division bench of this court has held in amit desai v. m/s. shine enterprises, ..... from the cause-title of the complaint, marwel organics-complainant is represented by its managing partner, daggubati srinivas prasad. in the copy of the unregistered partnership deed, dated 2.6.2001, it is stated that daggubati srinivasa prasad and mallela koteswara rao, father of mallela vasu, had been carrying on ..... the 1st respondent-firm was not competent to file the complaint because it was unregistered, and that the person whose name was shown in the partnership deed was not the managing partner of the 1st respondent-firm, and therefore the proceedings are liable to be quashed. learned counsel for the 1st .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 28 2003 (HC)

R.K. Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-28-2003

Reported in : 2003IVAD(Delhi)557; III(2003)BC231; 105(2003)DLT199; 2003(69)DRJ694

..... are the original certificate of registration as well as as form a by virtue of which name of the plaintiff firm was registered as partnership firm and thereforee section 69 of the indian partnership act providing that on behalf of the partnership firm, only a partner can institute the suit cannot come to the rescue of the defendant and, thus, issue is decided in favor ..... that suit is liable to be dismissed for want of notice under section 53b of the delhi development act. 4. vide order dated 14.3.1996, following issues were framed:-1. whether the plaintiff is a partnership firm duly registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act? if not, what the effect?2. whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff is entitled to all ..... of the plaintiff.issue no. 38. p.w.1 shri h.s. dharam sattu, executive engineer of defendant-dda has admitted service of notice under section 53b of the delhi development act ..... wages of labour, etc. as averred in para 30 of the plaint.3. whether the suit suffers for want of statutory notice under section 53-b of the delhi development act?4. whether the property valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction?5. whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is liable to pay rs. 500/- per day on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 14 2003 (HC)

Kuldipkumar Girdhar Das and Co., a Registered Partnership Firm Through ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-14-2003

Reported in : 2003(4)ALLMR77; 2003(6)BomCR594; 2004(1)MhLj71

..... controversy raised in the present group of petitions, facts in the first petition (writ petition no. 3433 of 2003) may briefly be stated.6. the petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. it is a member of the federation of associations of maharashtra (fam). it is engaged in business of trading in jaggery since 1993. the petitioner is also ..... passed the following order:-'rule. returnable in eight weeks. rule on interim relief returnable in eight weeks. in the meantime respondents will not take any coercive action under the act.parties to act on copy of this order duly authenticated.'20. from the above order, it is clear that on writ petition, rule was issued, and was made returnable within eight ..... .'(emphasis supplied)24. it was submitted by the learned assistant government pleader on behalf of the authorities that coercive actions were being taken for violation of the provisions of the act and not for not possessing the licences as required by the amended provisions, which were made subject-matter of writ petition. according to the court, however, no further clarification ..... ii, turbhe, navi mumbai, along with jaggery inside lawfully traded under a licence possessed by the petitioner. that action was taken in purported exercise of powers under the bombay prohibition act, 1949 as amended in 2000, by which the definition of molasses has been amended so as to include jaggery / gur, vesting unfettered powers in the respondents, which would hinder .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 25 2003 (HC)

The Court Receiver, High Court, as Receiver of the Business and Assets ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-25-2003

Reported in : 2003(3)ALLMR873; 2003(5)BomCR501; 2003(27)PTC555(Bom); [2003]45SCL335(Bom)

..... essential if it was to be extinguished, but this has subsequently been denied.'it is, therefore, clear that irrespective of the provisions of the indian partnership act, it cannot be the law that an action for passing-off cannot be maintained merely because the plaintiff has no business. therefore, the ..... possible to accept this submission. where the business is ceased on account of dissolution of the firm as is obvious from the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932, cessation of the business does not result in extinction of the goodwill. on the other hand, the law entitles a partner of ..... not yet complete.16. the question is does the goodwill in the business of the partnership firm exist in this situation 7 it seems to be clear that it does. section 14 of the indian partnership act, 1932 expressly stipulates that the property of the firm will include the goodwill of the ..... a case of dissolution of the firm and would have no application to a situation where a firm is being dissolved in the indian context under the indian partnership law which expressly recognizes the existence of goodwill after dissolution. moreover, in that case, there is a finding that the entire business ..... that such an injunction cannot be sought against a partner who has got the goodwill of the firm vide section 53. section 55 of the partnership act reproduced earlier, in fact, provides that in settling the accounts of a firm after dissolution, the goodwill shall, subject to the contract between the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2003 (HC)

Om Sai Hotels and Restaurants, a Partnership Firm Duly Registered Unde ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-30-2003

Reported in : (2004)ILLJ895Bom; 2004(2)MhLj547

..... copper chimney, which was already covered under the provisions of the said act.3. the few facts relevant for the decision are that the petitioner is a partnership firm duly registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act and engaged in the business of running a hotel in the premises at ..... saki naka, andheri, mumbai. on completion of the said premises, the petitioner entered into an agreement with another partnership firm by name m ..... parties to arrive at the said finding. clause (6) of the agreement provides that though m/s. copper chimney is known as a speciality indian restaurant considering the customers and market demands, m/s. copper chimney is free to introduce different types of cuisines like chinese, continental etc, for ..... the fact that the nature of the business carried on in them was the same. in indian cable co. ltd. v. its workmen : (1962)illj409sc this court has held that he act that the balance sheet was prepared incorporating the trading results of all branches or that the ..... impugned order ignoring all these aspects and directing clubbing of the petitioner's establishment with m/s. copper chimney, the respondents-authorities have clearly acted arbitrarily and in contravention of the provisions of law, and therefore the impugned order cannot be sustained.5. the learned advocate for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 2003 (HC)

The Management of Mettur Beardsell Ltd., Presently Known as Beardsell ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-22-2003

Reported in : (2004)IIILLJ811Mad; (2004)3MLJ385

..... ) of industrial disputes act. under the said settlement, it was agreed that mettur textiles private limited will continue the services of all the employees and will ..... textiles limited and rukmani under the name and style of mettur textiles. the partnership was to be at will. the assets and liabilities were to be shared at 50% each. there was nothing mentioned with regard to workmen excepting that other rights of the parties will be governed by indian partnership act. ex. m-20 is the memorandum of settlement under section 12(3 ..... clause 7 says that mettur textiles limited shall be responsible for the day to day running of the business but shall not act without concurrence of the managing director of mbl on major policy matters. there is no termination of partnership excepting that on retirement, a partner shall be entitled only to the amount standing to the credit of his account at ..... workmen on 13.5.1983 to mr. p.m. mathew, personnel director of the management that all the acts of the management had been unilateral, that the management cleverly palmed off the employees of the integrated thread and textiles division to a partnership concern without their knowledge and consent and they have expressed their apprehensions regarding the motive behind the withdrawal of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 06 2003 (HC)

Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Durga Crane and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jan-06-2003

Reported in : (2003)2CALLT122(HC)

..... even if the partnership firm stood dissolved on account of the letter written by shri bansal on 6th february, 1992, the authority of each partner to bind the firm and ..... be considered whether mr. banerjee's said submission can stand scrutiny in view of the fact that the petitioner company had not been formerly informed that the partnership had been dissolved giving rise to a situation contemplated in section 47 of the indian partnership act, 1932. it is also to be seen whether in view of the provisions of section 47 of the aforesaid ..... act, the petitioner company could have terminated the contract without ascertaining as to whether the other partner was ready and willing to complete the transaction under the contract.27 ..... scrutiny, particularly when the learned arbitrator had acted well within his jurisdiction and in terms of the contract.22. mr. saha submitted that the question regarding dissolution of the partnership had been duly considered by the learned arbitrator who relied on the tender form itself and also on the provisions of section 47 of the indian partnership act, 1932, to come to a finding that .....

Tag this Judgment!

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