Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 2007 Page 1 of about 291 results (0.062 seconds)

Mar 21 2007 (SC)

Ravi Prakash Goel Vs. Chandra Prakash Goel and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-21-2007

Reported in : AIR2007SC1517; 2007(2)ARBLR1(SC); 2007(2)AWC1858(SC); 2007(4)CTC417; JT2007(4)SC523; 2007(4)SCALE562

..... the court has been curtailed to the minimum possible level. it is the contention of the learned counsel that the rights of the legatee under the partnership act are regulated and conditioned by section 29 of the indian partnership act. and on the said strength he is only entitled to receive the share of the assets of the firm to which the testator, his predecessor ..... ?before we proceed further, it is useful to reproduce.16. section 40 of the arbitration act and sections 46, 47 and 48 of the indian partnership act.40. arbitration agreement not to be discharged by death of party thereto.- (1) an arbitration agreement shall not be discharged by the death of any party ..... of the opinion that in view of the provisions of section 46 read with section 48 of the indian partnership act as well as section 40 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996, the application for appointment of an arbitrator under the arbitration clause of the partnership deed was liable to be allowed and the learned chief justice has erred in overlooking the said provisions ..... life time of the partner?c) whether in view of section 46 read with section 48 of the indian partnership act as well as section 40 of the arbitration act, 1999, the petitioner is entitled to claim appointment of arbitrator under the arbitration clause of the partnership deed and the hon'ble chief justice of the allahabad high court has erred in overlooking these provisions .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 2007 (HC)

Pochareddy Radhakrishna Reddy Vs. Gopalakrishna Rice Mill

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-24-2007

Reported in : 2007(5)ALD162

..... defendant cannot change the state of things during the pendency of the suit. in virendra dresses v. varinder garments : air1982delhi482 , it was held that under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 a suit to enforce a right arising from a contract against a third party is barred unless the firm is registered and the application of bar under section 69 ..... . p.w.1 is the managing partner of the plaintiff-firm and d.w.1 is the defendant in the suit.10. the bar of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 in the context of the maintainability of the suit had been argued in elaboration and both courts recorded certain findings in this regard and on appreciation of the language ..... argued in elaboration by the learned counsel representing the appellant is as hereunder:whether the suit is maintainable in view of the bar imposed by section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932? 3. the unsuccessful defendant in both the courts below preferred the present second appeal. the respondent herein - the plaintiff sri gopalakrishna rice mill, gudur, represented by its managing partner ..... (2) of the act aforesaid does not extend to the enforcement of rights not arising from contract. section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 reads as hereunder:effect of non-registration:-(1) no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 13 2007 (HC)

Raghunath R. Desai Vs. Reliable Industrial Corporation,

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-13-2007

Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR652; 2007(6)BomCR317; (2007)109BOMLR1377; 2007(5)MhLj766

..... by the appellant for setting aside an exparte decree. 3. the respondent no. 1 'reliable industrial corporation' (for short respondent), which is stated to be a firm registered under the indian partnership act, filed a suit against the appellant bearing suit no. 1610 of 1992. in the plaint it was alleged that the appellant had borrowed from the respondent certain sum of money ..... decree was a nullity on the ground that partner of the respondent who had signed plaint was not shown to be a partner in the extract of registration of the partnership firm.9. for these reasons, the appeal is allowed. the impugned order is set aside and notice of motion is allowed as follows the judgment and order dated 12th june .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 01 2007 (HC)

Subhash Chander Chachra and ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Chachra and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-01-2007

Reported in : 2007(1)ARBLR288(Delhi); 137(2007)DLT401; 2007(95)DRJ55

..... to complete the transaction begun, but unfinished at the time of dissolution. this is so provided in section 47 of the indian partnership act, 1932. while dealing with section 47 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the hon'ble supreme court held that the word 'transaction' in section 47 refers not merely to commercial ..... to third parties to the fullest extent, for the debts and liabilities incurred prior to dissolution, and, subject to section 47 of the indian partnership act, 1932, in respect of liabilities incurred even thereafter. thereforee, merely to say that there are outstanding liabilities to the tune of rs. 50 ..... in the way of the arbitral tribunal in issuing interim direction of the kind that it did.20. section 48 of the indian partnership act, 1932 states that in settling the accounts of a firm after dissolution, various claims are to be settled in the order of ..... arbitral tribunal, primarily, on the ground that the said order is contrary to section 48 of the indian partnership act. the submission is that the claim before the arbitral tribunal is for dissolution of the partnership businesses between the parties and unless the accounts are taken and all the debts and liabilities of ..... the question that arises for consideration is; has the arbitral tribunal, while passing the interim directions, proceeded under section 48 of the indian partnership act, 193224. in my opinion, the answer is plainly in the negative. the stage for settlement of accounts has not yet arrived. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 20 2007 (HC)

Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Group Housing Society Vs. Umesh Goel and ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-20-2007

Reported in : 2007(4)ARBLR353(Delhi)

..... by the high court that the learned civil judge was wrong in rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint and in fact the respondent firm was registered under the indian partnership act, the question of throwing out the said suit on that ground would not arise. there cannot, however, be any doubt whatsoever that the firm must be registered at ..... . it is true that the arbitral proceedings would not be maintainable at the instance of an unregistered firm having regard to the mandatory provisions contained in section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932. it has been so held in jagdish chandra gupta v. kajaria traders (india) ltd. we may, however, notice that this court in firm ashok traders despite following ..... a dissolved firm, or any right or power to release property of a dissolved firm, was the exception carved out under sub-section (3) of section 69 of the indian partnership act. in saigal it was this exercise which was to be undertaken, and instead of filing a civil suit the parties have contractually agreed to enter into arbitration. thereforee, a ..... air2000sc2676 was applied erroneously. the following table is self explanatory so far as the claims proffered by the respondent unregistered partnership, which if allowed cannot but tantamount to removing the statutory embargo articulated in section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (for short 'partnership act), namely, that an unregistered firm is not competent to enforce a right emanating from a contract. if a suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 2007 (HC)

Progressive Constructions Ltd. Vs. Mr. P.S.V.P. Vittal Rao Alias Mr. V ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-02-2007

Reported in : [2007]139CompCas807(AP); (2007)2CompLJ493(AP)

..... also born out of recognition of equitable considerations generally. this is particularly so as section 35(6) of the english partnership act, 1890, also contains, inter alia, an analogous provision for the dissolution of partnership by the court. section 44(g) of the indian partnership act also contains the words 'just and equitable.'section 433(f) under which this application has been made has to be ..... faith and confidence in one another. clause 5 of ex.a-5 partnership deed narrates that the partnership of pec is a partnership at will. i, therefore, hold that it is a fit case for directing dissolution of the firm pec on just and equitable ground under section 44(g) of the indian partnership act.'9. on issue no.5 relating to the pendency of o ..... of 1983 before the i additional judge, city civil court, hyderabad, the suit being for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts, the company judge held that the pendency of that suit ..... read with section 443(2) of the act. under the latter provision where the petition is presented on the ground that it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 2007 (HC)

Kallepally Krishnam Raju Vs. Commissioner and Inspector General of Reg ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-16-2007

Reported in : 2007(4)ALD523

..... amount.7. having heard both the counsel, it is desirable that the relevant provisions of law i.e., section 14 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (for short 'the act') has to be referred, and it is thus:section 14 of the indian partnership act, 1932 :--the property of the firm - subject to contract between the partners, the property of the firm includes all property and rights ..... necessary for an individual to contribute any land or immovable property as a contribution against his share of the capital of a new partnership business. by virtue of section 14 of the act and certain provisions of the contract act, they become the properties of the firm as soon as the partners intend to do so bring them in and treat them as ..... ,39,400/-has to be construed as a gift given by the petitioner to the firm, and liable for stamp duty under article 29 of schedule i-a of the indian stamp act. pursuant to the order of the first respondent, the second respondent issued a notice dated 8.2.1999 demanding the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty. hence, this ..... such. this sort of contribution or transfer is not prohibited by the transfer of property act, 1882 or the registration act, 1908.9. further, from a reading of section 14 of the act, any property can be thrown into the partnership stock without any formal document and would, therefore, become the property of the firm. moreover, when the very .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 03 2007 (HC)

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - Ii Vs. Engineer ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-03-2007

Reported in : [2008]297ITR386(Mad)

..... or a company or any other public body or any association of persons or any body of individuals. the act adopts the definition of the terms 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' as contained in the indian partnership act, 1932. each partner is an agent of another.but the above said dictum will not be applicable to the ..... not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the learned first appellate judge in discharging a2 to a9 (a4 and a6 died). admittedly a1-partnership firm is responsible for the concealment of the income of rs. 2,20,000/- for which a1 (represented by managing partner s.ramesh) necessarily to ..... counsel would rely on the deposition of p.w.3 in the cross-examination to the effect that thiru.sampath is the managing partner of a1-partnership firm and that even during his investigation sampath was not alive, but a2 has given a statement to the effect that he is responsible for ..... no. ii, income tax commissioner, coimbatore division, against the accused under section 226(c) and 227 of the income tax act and also under section 193 and 196 of the ipc. the learned sessions judge has discharged the accused on two grounds. the learned sessions judge would state that the income tax ..... department has levied penalty for an offence contemplated under section 297(c)(1) of the income tax act for concealment of income by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 04 2007 (HC)

Central Bank of India and anr. Vs. Sagdeo Towers

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : May-04-2007

Reported in : AIR2007Bom139; 2007(5)ALLMR634; 2008(2)BomCR452; 2007(4)MhLj123

..... made by the hon'ble supreme court in the present case and to hold that the suit was not barred under section 69 of the indian partnership act. the courts below have taken a correct view of the matter and decreed the suit. i do not find any infirmity in the examination ..... ground in defence set up by the petitioners was that the suit was not maintainable and was hit by the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act which bars the suit. now in the present case it is an admitted fact that no fresh agreement of lease was entered into between the ..... respondent/plaintiff was not maintainable and, therefore, he pressed into service his star point namely, that the respondent/plaintiff partnership firm not being registered, the bar of section 69 of the indian partnership act made the suit untenable and thus was liable to be dismissed.(ii) the plaint averments did not indicate whether the ..... raised objection to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the respondent/plaintiff is not a registered partnership firm and as such by virtue of bar created under section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 the suit was not maintainable. other adverse allegations in the plaint were denied. however, the suit ..... far as this part of the cause of action is concerned, it stands completely outside the sweep of section 69 sub-section (2) of the partnership act. the net result of this discussion is that the present suit can be said to be partly barred by section 69 sub-section (2) so .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 13 2007 (HC)

Hukumchand Mishrilal JaIn and anr. Vs. Sushilabai Champalal Agrawal an ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-13-2007

Reported in : 2007(5)ALLMR171; 2008(3)BomCR867; 2007(4)MhLj379

..... behalf of the petitioners submitted that initially tenancy was created in favour of the partnership firm viz. m/s mishrilal dhanraj and company. there were two partners of this partnership firm viz. mr. mishrilal dhanraj jain and fulchand oswal. this partnership firm was registered in accordance with the provisions of indian partnership act, 1956. according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, there was a privity ..... of contract in between the landlord jamnalal and the partners of the partnership firm m/s mishrilal dhanraj and company. the ..... partners of the firm, apart from the partnership firm, in their individual capacity are tenant of the firm. on retirement .....

Tag this Judgment!

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