Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-20-2009
Reported in : AIR2009SC1858; 2009(3)BomCR790; 2009BusLR397(SC); JT2009(4)SC212; 2009(4)SCALE459; (2009)5SCC608; 2009(4)LC1712(SC); 2009AIRSCW3329; 2009(5)SCC608
..... that suit a defence taken was that the suit was not maintainable in view of sub-section (2a) of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as `the act'). the bombay city civil court was of the view that the said sub-section 2a, which was introduced by the maharashtra amendment to ..... the english law in so far as it makes registration compulsory for a firm and imposes a penalty for non-registration was not followed when the partnership act was made in india in 1932 as it was considered that this step would be too drastic and would introduce several difficulties. hence registration was made ..... (3)(a) to section 69 by an altogether different sub-section (3)(a).8. the original sub-section (3)(a) of section 69 in the partnership act read as follows:(3) the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to a claim of set-off or other proceeding to enforce ..... court, however, in the impugned judgment has held that the said sub-section 2a of section 69 of the act is not unconstitutional. hence this appeal before us.5. section 69(1) & (2) of the partnership act originally read as follows:69. effect of non-registration. (1) no suit to enforce a right arising from ..... sue for accounts or for its dissolution or for realizing their property in the firm.14. it may be mentioned that a partnership firm, unlike a company registered under the indian companies act, is not a distinct legal entity, and is only a compendium of its partners. even the registration of a firm does .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-05-2009
Reported in : 2009(6)KarLJ257; 2009(6)KLJ257
..... proceeding on the premises that the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 constituted a partnership firm to run a partnership business. drawing the attention of the court to section 69(1) of the indian partnership act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' for short), he submits that unless the firm was a registered one and ..... recorded a finding that plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 1 to 3 agreed to undertake a venture for development and sale of land in partnership by contributing equally and pursuant to the same, a registered agreement of sale was executed by the owners of the land in favour of the ..... loss.8. the trial court framed necessary issues including as to whether the plaintiffs proved that they were entitled to seek accounts of the dissolved partnership firm from the defendants and as to whether the plaintiffs proved that they were entitled to the decree for an amount found due to them ..... 1st defendant, they approached the 1st defendant agreeing to contribute towards the sale consideration and for future expenses so that the work could be done in partnership, to which the 1st defendant agreed. however, as plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 2 and 3 had no ready money, it was the ..... herein.2. appellant was the 1st defendant and 5th respondent was the 2nd defendant. the suit was filed for taking the accounts of the dissolved partnership firm treating the sales of the properties effected by the 1st defendant in favour of the purchasers as not binding on the plaintiffs and for .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-12-2009
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR64; 2009(111)BomLR1717; 2009BusLR444(Bom); 152CompCas571(Bom); 92SCL401(Bom)
..... material for our purpose are that the company petition no. 726 of 1998 was filed by m/s. kunal & co., a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act seeking an order for winding up of the appellant-company and an order for appointment of official liquidator as a liquidator of the company ..... was also sought.3. in the petition, it was averred that the appellant-company was incorporated on 17.2.1982 under the companies act, 1956 ..... motwani, (ii) shri manohar t. makhija and (iii) shri ramesh t. khanchandani. the said mr. makhija and mr. khanchandani who were non resident indians (nris) were introduced to the deponent by one shri sunil mirpuri who was an agent and broker in real estates. that the company was incorporated on 17 ..... circumstances, the petitioner-tarachand had lost confidence and was therefore seeking winding up of the company on just and equitable ground also. that the acts of omission and commission on the part of the company and particularly of its director shri motwani who has been in charge of the ..... its liabilities to acquire and purchase an immovable property being a plot at worli on auction sale by the appropriate authority under the income tax act and for meeting the consideration price of rs. 21,75,00,000/- the petitioner-tarachand provided advances to the appellant-company in the sum .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Dec-17-2009
Reported in : 2010(1)KLT557
..... of kerala 2006 (2) klt 270 (sc), to support the first point mentioned above, that is lack of power of the state government to modify the provisions of the indian partnership act and the companies act. special reference was made to paras. 16 to 20 of the said decision.4. the learned advocate general, on the other hand, submitted that the appellants do not ..... to rule 19(iv) was introduced. the learned advocate general further submitted that rule 19(ii) does not seek to amend the indian partnership act or the companies act. it only contains a deeming provision that even though the reconstitution of a partnership in certain circumstances may not have the effect of transfer of licence, the same shall be deemed to be a transfer for ..... for the appellant is that sub-rule (ii) of rule 19 of the rules, has the effect of amending the indian partnership act and the companies act. the said contention is plainly untenable. the rule making authority only said, if certain changes in the partnership firm or the company take place, they shall be treated as having the effect of transferring the licence and therefore ..... out that sub-rule (ii) of rule 19 of the rules has the effect of modifying or varying the provisions of the indian partnership act and the companies act. in the absence of any specific authorisation, as found in section 29(2)(r) of the abkari act, the state cannot frame any rule, which will have the effect of modifying the provisions of the aforementioned .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-16-2009
Reported in : AIR2009Delhi129
..... continue to exist notwithstanding the death of a partner or does it come to an end? the answer is provided in section 42(c) of the indian partnership act, 1932. it says that subject to contract between the partners, a firm is dissolved by the death of a partner. in view of this provision, it was open to the ..... and circumstances of the case, the relief sought for dissolution of partnership does not arise.12. by virtue of the second prayer, the plaintiffs are seeking the accounts of the ..... continue. however, no such clause was incorporated. therefore, in terms of section 42(c) of the indian partnership act, 1932, consequent upon the death of shri amar nath, the partnership firm stood dissolved by operation of law with effect from the date of his death, i.e. april 23, 2004.11. it was sought to be contended by learned counsel ..... the firm and as no partner had given notice for dissolution of the partnership in terms of the said clause, it continued to exist till the filing of the suit. the contention has no merit. as already held above, by virtue of clause 42(c) of the indian partnership act, 1932 the partnership firm stood already dissolved on april 23, 2004. hence, in the facts .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-23-2009
..... the time of hearing of the application before the learned single judge, it was argued on behalf of the appellants that under the provision of section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932 unless a firm had started carrying on business, the same could not be registered and in the present case the undisputed position being that the writ-petitioners have ..... order passed by the learned single judge.8. therefore, the only question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether in order to have registration of a partnership firm under the provision of the indian partnership act, it is necessary that the firm must commence the business agreed upon.9. in order to appreciate the aforesaid question, section 4 of the ..... law in passing direction for registration of the firm notwithstanding the fact that the formalities required under section 4 of the indian partnership act were not complied with. mr. mukhopadhyay strongly relied upon the phrase 'carried on', appearing in section 4 of the indian partnership act, and contends that so long the business is not actually carried on, there cannot be any valid ..... indian partnership act is quoted below:4. definition of partnership, partner, firm and firm name.- partnership is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all.persons who have entered into partnership with one another are called individually partners and .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-30-2009
Reported in : AIR2009AP466
..... of accounts as per clause 4 of the decree and he is entitled for sale of the assets of the partnership firm as per sections 46 and 48 of the indian partnership act, 1932. the lower court has considered only clause 2 of the decree while the right for settlement of accounts ..... between the partners, the share of each partner is, in the words of lindley:' his proportion of the partnership assets after they have been all realized and converted into money, and ..... observed that:it is obvious that the act contemplates complete liquidation of the assets of the partnership as a preliminary to the settlement of accounts between partners upon dissolution of the firm and it will, therefore, be correct to say that, for the purposes of the indian partnership act, and irrespective of any mutual agreement ..... and for sale of the assets of the partnership firm, arises out of clauses 3 and 4 of the decree. the extent ..... of the firm, and to have the surplus distributed among the partners or their representatives according to their rights.26. section 48 of the partnership act deals with mode of settlement of accounts between the partners, which reads as follows:48. mode of settlement of accounts between partners.in settling .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-09-2009
Reported in : 159(2009)DLT400
..... obviously set up to meet the legal road block, created by the provisions of order xxx rule 3 cpc read with section 18 and 19 of the indian partnership act that service upon one partner is impliedly service upon all the partners, has also not been proved in evidence. but, quite apart from the aforesaid facts ..... the admitted signatures and the alleged forged signatures. indubitably also, the signatures of the witness could have been proved through the bank records and through the partnership deed, but the same have been suppressed from the court and not even a scrap of paper has been produced bearing the signatures of the defendant ..... the defendant no. 1 firm was a registered firm or not, whether the defendant no. 1 firm was having any sales tax registration, whether the partnership deed had been filed with the bank or with any other authority or not, who was the chartered accountant and lawyer of the firm, whether any ..... crept in, it was decided to dissolve and reconstitute the firm from 31.03.1996. shri vijay kumar (the defendant no. 2) accordingly retired from the partnership firm. the dissolution deed, he stated, was signed by all the three partners and witnessed by shri ram lal and shri shiv narayan. carbon copy of ..... five hundred fifty two and paise thirty five only) was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 4. the defendant no. 1 is a partnership firm, of which the defendants no. 2 to 4 were partners.3. summons of the suit were sought to be served on the defendants. all .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-19-2009
..... of licence fees arises from a contract between the parties and unless the firm of which the petitioners are partners is registered in terms of provisions contained in the indian partnership act, 1932 (hereafter the act), a writ petition being a proceeding in a court of law would be barred having regard to the provisions of section 69 thereof. he relied on the decision ..... writ petition has been dismissed by the learned trial court only on the ground that in view of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 the writ petition would not be maintainable as it has been filed by an unregistered partnership firm. we are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid proposition would not disable the court to exercise its jurisdiction under article ..... was unregistered or not.10. this court has heard learned counsel for the parties. it would be profitable to read first sections 4 and 69 of the act, which provides:4. definition of 'partnership', 'partner', 'firm' and 'firm name'.-'partnership' is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profit of a business carried on by all or any of them ..... acting for all.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 called the 'firm name'.69. effect of non- .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-02-2009
Reported in : 2010(1)ALT91
..... trading or a non trading business.13. in this connection, it necessitates us to consider the law of the land viz., the provisions of indian partnership act i.e., sections 18, 19 and 22, which read as follows;section 18: partner to be agent of the firm:subject to the provisions of this ..... the plaintiff bank was marked as ex.a. 8 and the returned covers were marked as exs.a-10 to a-15 and ex.a-17. the partnership deed of the firm was marked as ex.a-18. therefore, on the entire appraisal of the said documentary evidence and on a reading of the ..... bench division in higgins v. beauchamp 1914 king's bench division 1192, where it has been held that implied authority of the partner to borrow money for partnership purposes, cannot be extended to a non-trading firm.8. sri k. mallikarjuna rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent bank repealing all ..... authority to borrow, and the question being that of implied authority to accept the principle that the managing partner of a common trading partnership has implied authority to borrow money for partnership purposes, thus binds the others. however what constitutes is the aspect of trading has not been gone into much in detail to apply ..... behalf of the firm,(g) transfer immovable property belonging to the firm, or(h) enter into partnership on behalf of the firm.section 22: mode of doing act to bind firm: in order to bind a firm, an act or instrument done or executed by a partner or other person on behalf of the firm shall be .....Tag this Judgment!