Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-28-2003
Reported in : 2004(5)ALT505
..... inclined to make this order of remand in the interest of justice after taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration especially in the light of the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 and also the factual controversy between the parties. in view of the findings recorded above, this court need not further dwell upon the other evidentiary details in detail.13 ..... were made relating to the nature of the document ex.b-1. however, the said question need not be gone into in the light of the different provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932.12. elaborate submissions were made relating to the reversal of the finding by the appellate court. where one fact finding court, the trial court, recorded a particular finding on ..... firm --whether an existing firm or an erstwhile firm - have been fighting this litigation. it is needless to say that the parties would be governed by the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932. apart from this aspect of the matter, the appellate court had framed a very cryptic point for consideration, but however dealt with all evidentiary details and had pointed out ..... a very small business. it is unfortunate that though the business is small, the parties have been litigating the matter for sufficiently a long time.11. section 69 of the indian partnership act deals with effect of non-registration. sub-section (1) of section 69 specifies as hereunder:'no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-31-2003
Reported in : 2003IVAD(Delhi)276; 2003(69)DRJ683
..... if not what is its effect? opp 19. it is pleaded in the plaint that the petitioner is a registered partnership firm duly registered under the indian partnership act with their head office located in bombay. the plaint was signed by mr. vipin kumar khanna, a partner of the plaintiff ..... . photocopies of the partnership deed and the extract from the register of firms bombay was filed by the plaintiff along ..... evidence of the registrar of firms. the plaintiff having failed to proved that it was a registered partnership firm, section 69 of the partnership act would come into play and places a bar on an unregistered partnership firm from filing a suit against a third party. 23. in kelson constructions v. versha ..... on merits, the defendant no.1 contended that the suit was not properly instituted by an authorised and a competent person as the partnership firm was not registered. the suit was thus not maintainable. the consignment was forwarded to the defendant no.1 by the clearing and ..... spinning mills ltd. & anr. 1994 (1) arb. l.r. 385, this court dismissed the petition on the ground of technical non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of law as the partnership .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-11-2003
Reported in : III(2003)BC24
..... petitioner-accused in the business of the accused firm. form-'a' issued by the registrar of firms under rule 5 framed under section 59 of the indian partnership act, 1932, annexed with the reply filed on behalf of the respondent further shows that from 1.4.1998 onwards smt. shakti bhakoo had been recorded as ..... the co-accused of the petitioner to create debt or liability so as to attract the provisions of section 138 of the act. in support of the stand taken, copy of partnership deed dated 14.1998 has been placed on record.6. opposing the petitioner's stand it was urged by the counsel ..... case. definite allegations had been made by the complainant in para 2 of the complaint that accused anoop bhakoo and smt. shakti bhakoo have been running partnership concern, namely, m/s sutlej knitwear and are responsible for the business and conduct of the accused firm. it is also stated by him that ..... dated 17.7.2000 have been sought on behalf of the petitioner primarily on the ground that the petitioner is only a sleeping partner in the partnership concern and was not actively engaged with the activities and business of the said firm and for that reason she could not be prosecuted in the ..... enterprises, bazar kharadian, ludhiana. annop bhakoo and his wife smt. shakti bhakoo arrayed as accused nos. 2 and 3 in the complaint had been running a partnership business under the name and style of m/s sutlej knitwear having their office at 228-a, industrial area 'a', ludhiana, arrayed as accused no. 1 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-29-2003
Reported in : 2003IIAD(Delhi)289; 2003(1)ARBLR685(Delhi); 103(2003)DLT209; 2003(68)DRJ702; 2003(2)RAJ65
..... -alia on the ground that during the pendency of a suit seeking the dissolution of a firm, on just and equitable grounds in terms of section 44(g) of the indian partnership act, the arbitrator would not be competent to adjudicate upon the disputes raised by the applicant.reliance was placed on the decision of the apex court in harayana telecom ltd. v ..... judicial authority, the arbitration may be commenced and continued and even arbitral award passed.20. the objection of the plaintiff to the effect that dissolution under section 44 of the partnership act, is a statutory right to be necessarily performed by the court only and not to be adjudicated upon by the arbitrator, does not prima facie appear to be the correct ..... have to be decided by the court, and not by the arbitrator; (v) another submission of the plaintiffs/non-applicant is that dissolution of partnership, is to be ordered by the court under section 44 of the partnership act, and thereforee the subject matter of the present suit, which involves a prayer for dissolution, cannot be referred for adjudication by arbitration. 5. on ..... of other dealings and developments between the parties, in their relationship as partners under the partnership deed, would have the effect of rendering the same irrelevant and otiose, is not only, not a valid contention even under the old act, but atleast as far as the new act is concerned, is absolutely untenable in the face of section 16(i)(a) of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-19-2003
Reported in : 2003(3)ARBLR532(Delhi); 108(2003)DLT699; 2004(72)DRJ47; 2004(1)RAJ309
..... application under section 20 of the arbitration act directing the original agreement to be filed in court and appointed an arbitrator to enter into ..... not maintainable and was barred under section 69 of the said act. no issue was framed by the trial court on the question as to whether the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act and the court by order dated 20.12.1994, allowed the ..... shows that a suit to enforce a right to sue for dissolution and rendition of accounts is not barred by provisions of section 69 of the partnership act and even if the firm is not registered and the person suing has not been registered as a partner of the firm, the partner can ..... ground that the court had not considered the objections raised by the respondent that the suit was barred by the provisions of section 69 of the partnership act. by the impugned judgment, the trial court allowed that application and reviewed the order and set aside its earlier judgment dated 20.12.1994 and ..... appeal.5. it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the provisions of section 69(3) of the partnership act will not bar an application under section 20 of the arbitration act for reference of disputes, which includes dissolution and rendition of accounts, to an arbitrator. it is also contended that .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-11-2003
Reported in : (2004)1MLJ105
..... public notice under this act is given: (a) where it relates to the retirement or expulsion of a partner from a registered firm ..... 22.6.1996 and attachment was effected on 12.7.1996 when no public notice was given as contemplated under section 72 of indian partnership act, 1932 to bind the third party, viz., the plaintiff/appellant herein? 4.1. question:1 - whether the lower appellate court is correct in holding that the present claim petition is ..... the relevancy of the public notice contemplated under section 72 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (for brevity 'the act'). section 72 of the act reads as follows: 'section: 72 - mode of giving public notice:- a ..... is correct in allowing the appeal on the ground that the second respondent/judgment debtor had retired from partnership on 22.6.1996 and attachment was effected on 12.7.1996 when no public notice was given as contemplated under section 72 of indian partnership act, 1932 to bind the third party, viz., the plaintiff/appellant herein? 5.2. i am inclined to refer .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-21-2003
Reported in : (2004)138PLR668
..... of 12% per annum from the date of decree till the realisation of the entire amount.2. briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant firm was a registered partnership firm under the indian partnership act and kartar singh and iqbal singh were its partners. it had been dealing in poultry feed. on 22.8.1989, the respondents (defendants) purchased poultry feed from the ..... for the parties, civil judge (junior division), moga, vide judgment dated 8,9,1997, decreed the suit by holding under issue no.l that the appellant firm is a registered partnership firm and the suit had been filed through kartar singh, a registered partner, under issue nos.2, 3 and 4, it was held that the respondents' (defendants) version was not ..... lal had filed a suit against butter rice. mill other allegations were denied.3. with these pleadings, the following issues were framed;' 1. whether the plaintiff firm is a registered partnership firm and the present suit has been filed through registered partner? opp2. whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any interest from the defendants if so, at what rate and ..... (defendants) contested the suit and filed written statement taking preliminary objection that m/s ram niwas sham lai was a partnership firm having ram niwas, sham lal and panni devi as partners and further butter rice mill was also a partnership firm having kartar singh, iqbal singh and bhagwant singh as partners to the extent of one half share and ram narain .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-04-2003
Reported in : (2004)1CALLT280(HC)
..... the said sum of rs. 80,91,054/- until realisation and some other reliefs.2. briefly stated the case of the plaintiff is that original plaintiff was a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act, 1932 and was carrying on business as an exporter of diverse products to diverse foreign buyers. on 8th october, 1985 the original plaintiff entered into an agreement ..... original plaintiff and then the present plaintiff. on 30th january 1996 the present plaintiff was incorporated under the companies act. 1956 and all the assets, rights, benefits, licenses, liabilities and obligations of the original plaintiff ram chander heeralall which was a partnership business stood vested in the present plaintiff and the plaintiff became entitled to pursue the suit.8. defendant no ..... and 7:14. being interlinked all these issues are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and brevity.15. admittedly, ramchander heerlall which was a registered partnership firm was the original plaintiff and pw pradip khaitan who has come as sole witness on behalf of the plaintiff was partner of the said registered firm. exhibit 'a' is ..... fluctuation of foreign exchange cannot be said to be money recovered in respect of loss to which the policy (exhibit 'd') applies. such excess amount generated by devaluation of indian currency is fortuitous event which cannot come within the ambit of loss in respect of which the policy applies. there is nothing in the policy (exhibit 'd') to indicate .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-13-2003
Reported in : (2003)1MLJ781
..... which busies or occupies one's attention and labour as his chief concern; mercantile pursuits; that which one does for a livelihood; occupation; employment (s. 2(b), indian partnership act; - 'calcutta turf club v. secy. of state', air 1921 cal 44 (a); - 'exparte breeull', 1881-16-ch.d.484; - 'a minck v. ..... given in the various dictionaries and the legal pronouncements referred supra, the following would emerge,the word 'business' has not been defined or explained in the act or in the rules framed thereunder. the word 'business' has to be understood as - trade, or- occupation, or - profession, or - livelihood ..... balkrishan v. union of india), a learned single judge of delhi high court while considering the provision of section 20 of code of civil procedure (act 5 of 1908), ruled that 'the expression 'business' has very wide import and is understood in different senses in varying contexts. in its generic ..... pradesh v. h.a. bakhi & bros.), the supreme court considered the said term with reference to a case arising under hyderabad general sales tax act, 1950. in that case, the supreme court observed as under,'the expression 'business' though extensively used, is a word of indefinite import. in taxing ..... rs.5,540/-.3. being dissatisfied with such fixation, the respondents/land owners, exercising their option under section 18 of the land acquisition act, requested that the matter may be referred to a civil court. in their requisition which was given in writing, they have specifically mentioned .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-03-2003
Reported in : 2003(4)ALLMR1054; 2004(2)BomCR352; 2003(3)MhLj979
..... further held that the suit was not maintainable on account of the specific bar as laid down in section 69 sub-clause (2) of the indian partnership act. once having held that the suit is not maintainable, the question of returning the plaint for presentation to the proper court, therefore, did not ..... that one of the partner has not been shown in the register of firms as partners. sub-clause (4) of section 69 of the indian partnership act lay down two exceptions to said rule. the sub-clause (4), therefore, clearly stipulates that the provision of the said section would not be ..... the conclusion that the suit was not maintainable, in view of the specific bar as provided in section 69 sub-clause (2) of the indian partnership act. she further submitted that, in fact, the plea in respect of section 69 was not specifically raised in the written statement and as such ..... as follows : (1) whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit? (2) does the plaintiff prove that it is a registered partnership firm under the indian partnership act? (3) does the plaintiff further prove that defendant has placed the order on telephone in the month of october 1981 for supply of goods ..... returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court. it was further contended that the suit firm was not registered under the provisions of indian partnership act and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. they further denied that they had placed any order with the plaintiff on telephone in the month .....Tag this Judgment!