Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 2012 Page 1 of about 282 results (0.062 seconds)

Jan 09 2012 (HC)

P. Rathinasabapathy Vs. P. Annamalai and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-09-2012

..... of the first defendant (deceased). 11. the learned counsel for the appellant projects a legal plea that as a partner of the partnership firm, the second defendant is also liable for the claim, if any against the firm, under the indian partnership act. 12. lastly, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgments and decrees of the trial ..... any amount has been given by the plaintiff to the second defendant, the first defendant is not liable for the same. 26. it is to be noted that under the indian partnership act, one partner is an agent of the other partner and he or she has express or implied authority to do certain ..... suit. 20. a firm may not be a legal entity like that of a corporation or company (incorporated under the companies act, 1956), but it is still an existing concern where business is transacted by a number of individuals in partnership. 21. the payment to the firm of a private debt due to one partner is not a discharge, unless it is ..... acts for and on behalf of the firm, representing the other partners. after all a partnership is nothing but a compendium of individuals who have entered into an agreement to do one or other kind of business transaction. 27. as far as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 2012 (HC)

Shiv Sahni Vs. Isherdas Sahni and Brothers and Others

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Oct-31-2012

..... share as it is as if belonging to the deceased/outgoing partner with entitlement of such deceased/outgoing partner in terms of section 37 of the indian partnership act. d) the plaintiff was never a partner in the individual capacity and was always representing k.l.sahni huf. since now the defendant nos.9 ..... for the time being with all the property of the firm with entitlement of the deceased partner in terms of section 37 of the indian partnership act. as such, it is decided by all the continuing partners to not to take over the share of the deceased partner m/s ..... therefore, whenever a nominee of huf being a karta or a member of family is appointed as a partner in the partnership firm, his rights and obligations are governed by indian partnership act 1932 in his individual capacity and not as per the hindu law. in this context mr.sibal relied upon the judgment ..... profits is concerned shall continue to be governed by the indian partnership act, 1932 and shall remain unaffected by the said act of profit sharing amongst the family members which is an act later in point of time than the receipt of the profits from the partnership business. therefore, the change in constitution of huf or ..... ) mr.sibal has argued that the plaintiff could be expelled in view of the powers contained in the contract between partners as per section 33 of partnership act, 1932. the said deed dated 1st november, 2002 is not the document containing such power as the said clause 24 of deed dated 1st december, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 2012 (HC)

Ashok Kumar Malhotra and Others Vs. Kasturi Lal Malhotra

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-27-2012

..... (for short `the act), the court alone can order dissolution of firm and that the arbitrator cannot order dissolution of a partnership firm. therefore, the present application before this court is not maintainable. in support of such arguments, learned ..... by way of arbitration. the said application is stated to be still pending. learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that in term of section 44 of the indian partnership act, 1932 ..... as insolvent, or by the happening of certain contingencies as mentioned in section 42. still further, a firm can be dissolved by notice of partnership at will as provided under section 43 of the act. the manner of dissolution of firm is purely contractual. the jurisdiction of the court to order dissolution is not exhaustive and exclusive. the ..... matter shall be referred to and got decided by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of indian arbitration act, in force. petitioners have averred that the respondent has filed a petition for dissolution of partnership firm before the civil judge (senior division), jagadhri. in the said petition, the respondent has asserted that the disputes are required to be resolved .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 27 2012 (HC)

Hotel Diplomat Vs. Folio Holdings (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Aug-27-2012

..... whether the suit is liable to be rejected under order 7 rule 11 cpc? opd b. whether the suit is barred in view of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932? opd c. whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? opd d. whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of rs 49,56 ..... 3. the defendants have also taken certain preliminary objection. they have alleged that the suit is liable to be dismissed in view of section 69(2) of partnership act as the suit in the name of the firm is not maintainable. the defendants have also denied the authority of shri v. m. mathew to file the ..... by the plaintiff on 07.05.2010. this document shows that m/s hotel diplomat is a partnership firm and shri sanjeev lamba and kailash lamba are its registered partner. since the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm since 16.10.1991, the suit for recovery of money on behalf of the plaintiff firm is ..... defendant no.2, who is stated to be the chief executive officer of defendant no. 1 is not personally liable since she, while taking the rooms, was acting on behalf of defendant no. 1-company and did not furnish a personal guarantee to the plaintiff. the suit against defendant no. 2 is hereby dismissed, ..... of rs 49,56,195/-. the case of the plaintiff is that defendant no. 2 represented that defendant no. 1 was a company incorporated under companies act and she was its chief executive officer in-charge and responsible for day-to-day conduct of its business. in january, 2000, defendant no. 2 contacted .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 02 2012 (HC)

M/S. Sukhdev Raj-baldev Raj Vs. Manohar Lal

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-02-2012

..... . learned first appellate court also did not find any merit in the argument that the firm was not registered. therefore, the suit is not maintainable under section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932. learned first appellate court returned a finding that defendant no. 1 has taken over the assets and liabilities of the dissolved firm and issued a cheque in favour of ..... chaman lal-defendant. all the payments were made to the plaintiff in the presence of joginder pal and hakim rai-sarpanch. it was alleged that the accounts of the previous partnership firm stands settled on 11.10.1982. it was also pointed out that the defendant advanced a sum of rs.20,000/- to the plaintiff so as to enable the ..... that the cheque, a bill of exchange, is a negotiable instrument. the issuance of the cheque itself carries presumption of consideration in terms of section 118 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881. therefore, the issuance of cheque coupled with the evidence led by the parties leave no manner of doubt that the cheque amount reflects the payment due to the plaintiff .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 2012 (TRI)

Mayuresh Park Jasmine I, J and K Co-op Housing Society Ltd. Through It ...

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-29-2012

..... .3-mr.harisingh gogavat is described as chief promoter and authorized signatory of the firm company which is registered under the indian partnership act, 1958. at the outset, it may be mentioned that if opponent builder firm is registered under the indian partnership act, then it will have only partners and not chairman and managing director which has a character akin to the company registered ..... under the companies act. 2. it is the grievance of the complainant society that the builder which has constructed housing complex mayuresh park ..... charges which in fact ought to have been paid by the builder and, therefore, they should be reimbursed, then such claim would be covered u/sec.69 of the indian contract act and it will not fall with the scope of a consumer dispute. 15. furthermore, for the sake of argument if we presume that the actionable claim in respect thereof ..... contained in the flat purchase agreements with the members of the complainant and that the services provided by the opponents as ??promoter ? as per the provisions of maharashtra ownership flats act are defective, deficient and unfair trade practices towards the members of the complainants; b) this honble commission be further pleased to direct the opponents to pay compensation to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 2012 (HC)

Skygourmet Catering Private Limited and Another Vs. Mars Hotels and Re ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-13-2012

..... as malaysian airlines and saudi arabian airlines. m.h.r.p.l. is also a company registered and incorporated under the provisions of the companies act, 1956 and m.e. is a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. 5. it is the case of the applicants that the respondents are the owners of the remaining floors of aoh building and are ..... essential supply or service includes supply of water, electricity, lights in passages and on staircases, lifts and conservancy or sanitary service; (b) withholding any essential supply or service shall include acts or omissions attributable to the landlord on account of which the essential supply or service is cut-off by the municipal authority or any other competent authority. (7) without prejudice ..... in passages and on stair-cases, and lifts and conservancy or sanitary service. explanation ii. - for the purposes of this section, withholding any essential supply or service shall include acts or omissions attributable to the manager on account of which the essential supply or service is cut off by the local authority or any other competent authority. 36. section 24 ..... it is in these circumstances, the applicants filed the application under section 12-a of the maharashtra ownership of flats (regulations of the promotion of construction, sale, management and transfer) act, 1963 (for short 'mofa') on 21.10.2011. during the pendency of those proceedings, the applicants prayed for interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (d) and (e) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 2012 (HC)

Skygourmet Catering Private Limited and Another Vs. Mars Hotels and Re ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-13-2012

..... as malaysian airlines and saudi arabian airlines. m.h.r.p.l. is also a company registered and incorporated under the provisions of the companies act, 1956 and m.e. is a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. 5. it is the case of the applicants that the respondents are the owners of the remaining floors of aoh building and are ..... essential supply or service includes supply of water, electricity, lights in passages and on staircases, lifts and conservancy or sanitary service; (b) withholding any essential supply or service shall include acts or omissions attributable to the landlord on account of which the essential supply or service is cut-off by the municipal authority or any other competent authority. (7) without prejudice ..... in passages and on stair-cases, and lifts and conservancy or sanitary service. explanation ii. - for the purposes of this section, withholding any essential supply or service shall include acts or omissions attributable to the manager on account of which the essential supply or service is cut off by the local authority or any other competent authority. 36. section 24 ..... it is in these circumstances, the applicants filed the application under section 12-a of the maharashtra ownership of flats (regulations of the promotion of construction, sale, management and transfer) act, 1963 (for short 'mofa') on 21.10.2011. during the pendency of those proceedings, the applicants prayed for interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (d) and (e) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 03 2012 (HC)

M/S. Niwas Ramgopal and Others Vs. the Director of Consumer Goods and ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-03-2012

..... respondents have illegally not extended the validity of the token. according to them, clause 1.5 of their policy dated 1.12.2008 is contrary to the provisions of the indian partnership act. 14. mr. l.c. behani, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, had drawn the attention of this court to clause 18 of the agreement which states that death ..... clause 1.5 of the policy guidelines dated 1.12.2008 (page 87 of the writ petition) be declared to be contrary to the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the 1932 act) the petitioners further pray for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to renew the licence of the petitioner ..... are also legal heirs. however, a partnership deed has to be reckoned in terms of the partnership act and clause 18, if construed, will not mean that the partnership itself should be terminated merely because one of the partners had died. let it be recorded further that the partnership deed was not only acted upon but it was recognized by indian oil corporation themselves and therefore, they ..... cannot be allowed to render the said partnership deed infructuous on the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 03 2012 (HC)

M/S. Shree Niwas Ramgopal and ors. Vs. the Director of Consumer Goods ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-03-2012

..... respondents have illegally not extended the validity of the token. according to them, clause 1.5 of their policy dated 1.12.2008 is contrary to the provisions of the indian partnership act.14. mr. l.c. behani, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, had drawn the attention of this court to clause 18 of the agreement which states that death of ..... clause 1.5 of the policy guidelines dated 1.12.2008 (page 87 of the writ petition) be declared to be contrary to the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the 1932 act) the petitioners further pray for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to renew the licence of the petitioner ..... are also legal heirs. however, a partnership deed has to be reckoned in terms of the partnership act and clause 18, if construed, will not mean that the partnership itself should be terminated merely because one of the partners had died. let it be recorded further that the partnership deed was not only acted upon but it was recognized by indian oil corporation themselves and therefore, they ..... cannot be allowed to render the said partnership deed infructuous on the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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