Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 2008 Page 1 of about 230 results (0.067 seconds)

Jan 22 2008 (HC)

Smt. Usha Gopirathnam W/O Shri Gopirathnam, Vs. Shri P.S. Ranganathan, ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-22-2008

Reported in : 2008(3)AIRKarR291; AIR2008NOC2137; 2008AIHC2457(Kar); 2008(5)KLJ220

..... cannot be construed as notice to all the partners and therefore it is not a notice at all having regard to the provisions of section 32 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (for short the 'partnership act). in order to reinforce his submission that gopirathnam did not retire from the firm despite the existence of ex. d-2, the learned senior counsel took; ..... same chapter under the heading 'collection of other definitions' and under that, the definition given in the indian partnership act, 1932 (based on the partnership act 1890) is also included and the definitions as given by frederick pollock and watson are as under:pollock: partnership is the relation which subsists between parsons who have agreed to sham the profits of a business carried on ..... their status does not arise. the appellants have failed to plead, the existence of a contract and therefore having regard to the nature of partnership and the provisions of the partnership act, particularly section 69 of the partnership act, the suit itself is not maintainable, in order to drive home the point that existence of a contract is essential, learned senior counsel referred ..... having continued as a partner during the 24 years period,, between the date of letter of retirement written by the gopirathnam and his death. as the essential requirements of partnership act had not been fulfilled the trial court has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. no interference is therefore necessary in this appeal and he prayed for the dismissal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 2008 (HC)

Padmavathi Finance Corporation Vs. S.V. Metal Unit and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-04-2008

Reported in : 2009(6)ALT544

..... said suit debt.11. on the strength of these pleadings, the following issues had been settled by the trial court:1. whether the plaintiff is a firm registered under the indian partnership act?2. whether the suit pronote dt.13.09.83 is true and valid?3. whether the modification of the authority of the defendants 2 and 5 by a modification deed ..... his name.19. the learned counsel representing the parties made further elaborate submissions on the strength of the sections 19, 20 and 22 of the indian partnership act as well.20. section 19 of the act, deals with implied power of partner as agent of the firm.sub-section (1) of section 19, reads as under:subject to the provisions of section 22, the ..... on this aspect. while further elaborating the submissions, the learned counsel also had taken this court through the sections 19, 20 and 22 of the indian partnership act and sections 26 and 27 of the negotiable instruments act as well and would maintain that in the light of the evidence available on record, the trial court recorded appropriate findings granting decree against those, who ..... suit against the firm and the other partners cannot be sustained. the learned counsel also pointed out to sections 19, 20 and 22 of the indian partnership act and sections 26 and 27 of the negotiable instruments act and would maintain that the trial court had not appreciated these provisions properly. the learned counsel also would maintain that a cursory glance of the contents .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 24 2008 (HC)

Yessay Foodoils (Represented by Its Partners: Mohammed Iqbal S/O Late ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-24-2008

Reported in : 2008(5)KCCR3232; AIR2009Kant103; ILR2009KAR724; 2009(9)KarLJ156; 2009(3)AIRKarR352;

..... plaintiffs in the trial court.2. the suit was instituted by the plaintiffs, who are the partners of an unregistered partnership firm, seeking the relief of possession and ..... v. jagannathan, j.1. whether the suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm for possession and mesne profits can be said to be not maintainable in view of the bar under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 is the question that calls for an answer in this second appeal filed by the ..... will have to be mainly on the maintainability of the suit in view of the bar contained under section 69(2) of the partnership act.12. section 69(2) of the partnership act, 1932 reads as under:(2) no suits to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any court by ..... air2000sc2676 , the learned counsel for the appellants argued that it is clear from the aforesaid decisions of the apex court that section 69(2) of the partnership act cannot be a bar for the enforcement of a statutory right or a common law right by an unregistered firm and the right to evict a tenant upon ..... a suit wherein the plaintiff firm is not enforcing contractual right vis-a-vis the defendant, even in terms of section 69(2) of the partnership act, 1932.7. learned counsel shri kukkaje ramakrishna bhat for the appellants, contended that the lower appellate court was totally in error in not noticing the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 30 2008 (HC)

A.B. Patil Vs. Orissa Transport Service, Rep. by Its Branch Manager an ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jun-30-2008

Reported in : 2008(5)ALD473

..... firm who had accepted him as their agent. the counsel for appellant placed strong reliance on section 25 of the indian partnership act. section 25 of the said act deals with the liability of a partner for the acts of the firm and the said provision specifies that every partner is liable jointly with all the other partners and also ..... would be binding on the firm. the learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this court to section 25 of the indian partnership act and also section 2(a) and 2(b) of the said act and would maintain that in the light of the said provisions, the decree of the court of first instance to be restored ..... .b-1 is the cash statement issued by orissa transport service; ex.b-2 is the statement of account; ex.b-3 is the original deed of partnership dated 01.4.1983; ex.b-4 is the true copy of registration of the defendants' firm and ex.b-5 is the certified copy of judgment in ..... hand loan does not arise at all. defendant no. 1 was being a registered concern always represented by its partners in business dealings as per law of partnership. the erstwhile manager of defendant no. 1 firm by name govind singh was only an employer of the firm and he had no authority or power to ..... there is anything repugnant in the subject or context expressions used but not defined in this act and defined in the indian contract act, 1872 (9 of 1872) shall have the meaning assigned to them in that act.15. the evidence of p.w.1-appellant is clear and categorical about exs.a-1 to a-3. it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 09 2008 (HC)

Sri Gaur Karuna Dey and ors. Vs. Sri Nemai Dey and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-09-2008

Reported in : 2008(3)CHN590,2(2008)CLT537

..... retirement at all in the suit. still then when the learned appeal court discussed the legality of such retirement after analyzing the provision contained in section 32 of the indian partnership act, this court feels the necessity of assessing the correctness of such findings of the learned appeal court herein.35. for proper appreciation of the provision contained in of ..... the said business until such accounts are settled and value of the plaintiffs' share are paid in view of section 37 of the indian partnership act, 1932.26. mr. roy chowdhury further submitted that since admittedly the partnership business was started by raising loan from bank and various financial institutions, public notice notifying retirement of the plaintiffs should have been issued ..... the said appeal the learned appeal court held that the retirement of the plaintiffs from the partnership business was neither effected as per the provision contained in the partnership agreement nor was effected in terms of the provision contained in section 32 of the indian partnership act as public notice regarding such retirement was not given. the learned appeal court held that ..... from their date of retirement i.e. 1st january, 1995.19. mr. sahoo further submitted that the learned appeal court wrongly construed the provision of section 32 of the partnership act. referring to a decision of the hon'ble supreme court in the case of pamuru vishnu vinobh reddy v. chillakuru chandra sekhara reddy reported in : [2003]2scr57 mr. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 13 2008 (HC)

People Charity Fund and ors. Vs. K. Raghava Reddy and Associates

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-13-2008

Reported in : 2009(3)KarLJ562; 2009(1)AIRKarR367; AIR2009NOC871(D.B)

..... of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, we are of the opinion that the suit filed by respondent was not maintainable and the same is ought to be dismissed.62. in the result, ..... final and we confirm the finding of the trial court that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable in view of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932.61. in view of our finding on question no. 1, since the respondent is not a registered firm and taking into consideration the provisions ..... petition and execute a sale deed in terms of the compromise?(c) whether this court can allow the appeal in view of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932?it is also relevant to consider the application filed by the appellants under order 22, rule 10 of the cpc seeking permission by the present ..... issue 1 in negative and additional issue 2 in affirmative and further held that the suit by the firm was not maintainable under section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 since the firm was not a registered one. against the findings of the trial court on these two additional issues, the plaintiff has not ..... that the suit instituted by the plaintiff as an unregistered firm on the date of the suit was hit by section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 and therefore, additional issue 1 was answered in the negative and issue 2 in the affirmative. there is no challenge to the finding .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 12 2008 (HC)

Ram Niwas Agarwal and anr. and Vs. Manoj Kumar Agarwal and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : Feb-12-2008

..... establish a prima facie case that plaintiff no. 1 is an adopted son of the defendant first party. he further held that the concerned firms, though constituted under the indian partnership act, are partnership firms of joint family and other properties are joint family properties. therefore, there is a prima facie case that the plaintiffs have share in the properties and that irreparable ..... and defendant nos. 1 and 2 (appellants) have 50% share in the name of ram niwas agrawal. according to the appellants, it is a separate business constituted under the indian partnership act. the plaintiffs have not filed any document, nor has shown sufficient joint family nucleus to prove prima facie that it is a joint family business or that the joint family ..... joint family business. the firm m/s. patna wire and wire products, m/s. suresh aluminium works, m/s. r.d. steel and sri mahabir industries are partnership business governed by the indian partnership act and are not ancestral business nor carried by ancestral assets. m/s. suresh aluminium works (described in schedule ii) is closed since 1992. in relation to this firm ..... are described in schedule ii.5. there was another firm m/s. mahabir steel rerolling mills, now m/s. dina mahabir rerolling mills private limited which was under the partnership of ram niwas agrawal, bajrang prasad agrawal, musaddilal goenka, sultania and kamalia families. ram niwas agrawal and bajrang prasad were representing the branch of jhavarmal in the capacity of partners .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 2008 (HC)

Sri Mappillai Vinayakar Cine Complex Vs. Commercial Tax Officer

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-30-2008

Reported in : [2008]146CompCas110(Mad); [2010]97SCL252(Mad); (2008)14VST459(Mad)

..... running a cinema theatre under a duly granted licence; on the demise of one of the partners in 1997 the partnership was reconstituted and the business was continued; in 2006 the partnership was again reconstituted and the new partnership firm was registered under the indian partnership act, 1932 bearing registration no. 206 of 2006 on the file of the registrar of firms, madurai (south); ..... the petitioner-firm is also an assessee on the file of the respondent under the tamil nadu entertainments tax act, 1939 and as on today ..... contention of the petitioner that m/s. sri mappillai vinayagar spinning mills ltd., and m/s. sri manicka vinayagar spinning mills ltd., are limited companies incorporated under the indian companies act, 1913 and simply because some of the partners in the petitioner's firm are directors of the said limited companies, the property belonging to the petitioner, which is a ..... that the petitioner-firm is not consisting of eight partners from the commencement of the theatre and the registered partnership deed no. 206 of 2006 has not been brought to the notice of the collector who issued the licence under the cinematograph act, 1952 and the concerned commercial tax officer who permitted the petitioner to run the theatre under tnet .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 2008 (HC)

Satyajit Maity and anr. Vs. R.S.S. Bricks Works (Brand Deep) and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jan-18-2008

Reported in : (2008)3CALLT504(HC)

..... .9. it appears that the learned trial court by the impugned order dated 11.05.2006 allowed the application for injunction. section 69 of the indian partnership act deals with the effect of non-registration. referring to the same, it was submitted by mr. roy chowdhury that the learned trial court should not ..... assailing the impugned order, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the partnership firm being unregistered, a suit filed by a partner against another is not maintainable in view of section 69(1) of the indian partnership act, 1932 unless it is a suit for dissolution of the firm or for accounts ..... of a dissolved firm or to realize the property of such dissolved firm. it was categorically submitted that the learned court was not justified in holding that the suit is protected under section 69(3)(a) of the said act ..... as reported in (2004) 13 scc 750, the hon'ble apex court dealt with the aforesaid section 69(1) and section 69(3) of the partnership act and the relative scope and applicability. admittedly the firm being m/s. r.s.s. bricks works (brand deep) is not registered. naturally, any right ..... instituted by the plaintiff suing as a partner it falls directly within the wording of section 69(1) of the india partnership act. but sub-section (3) of section 69 of the said act refers to a new dimension as the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) cannot affect the enforcement of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 18 2008 (HC)

Sapna Ganglani D/O Shyam M. Ganglani and Smt. Tamanna Moolchandani W/O ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-18-2008

..... material available in the lower court records are perused.4. sri. chandrashekar, learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to the provisions of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') and order xxx rule 1 of cpc, strongly contended that the person who has signed and verified the plaint in the said case as an authorized signatory ..... really a suit by the partners at the time of the accrual of the cause of action, in order to consider whether the bar of section 69(2) of the partnership act was attracted or not. it cannot be said that order 30 rule 2(3) provides only a fiction and that fiction must be limited only in so far as it ..... has been instituted by the firm as representing all the partners. here we may notice the definition of the term 'firm' in the partnership act. it has been defined in the said act in this way:persons who have entered into partnership with one another are called individually 'partners' and collectively 'a firm', and the name under which their business is carried on is ..... third party. for answering the said question, we have to turn to the provisions of section 4 of the act, section 45 of the contract act and order 30, rule 1 of the code of civil procedure. persons who have entered into partnership with one another are called individually partners and collectively a firm and the name under which their business is carried .....

Tag this Judgment!


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