Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
Decided on : Aug-01-2013
..... ), is a consumer, in accordance with section 2(1)(d)(i)??. 2. the case of m/s. nav bharat press, the complainant, is that it is a registered partnership firm, under the provisions of indian partnership act, and mainly deals in publication of newspapers, with its publishing centres at raipur, bilaspur, raigarh, durg, bhubaneswar, in the states of chhattisgarh and odisha. the complainant has ..... purpose. 6. instead of touching the heart of the problem, the learned counsel for the complainant has just skirted it. it is difficult to fathom as to how can a partnership firm, which is transacting the business of printing and publication of newspapers, can be said to be a consumer?? it is clear that the employees, representatives, correspondents, etc., would transact ..... may kindly be pleased to :- i) hold that, the opponents are guilty of unfair trade practice and have committed deficiency in service as contemplated under the provisions of consumer protection act. ii) issue appropriate direction to the opponents to complete the entire work of the scheme, i.e., the infrastructural development as mentioned in para ___ above and bungalow booked by .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
Decided on : Aug-01-2013
..... complaint was filed before this commission, on 18.07.2005. 5. the opposite party contested this case. the complainant alleges that it is a partnership firm, but no registration certificate has been filed under section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932. the insurance company, vide its letter dated 11.11.2003, has validly declared the complainants claim as no claim?. after repeated reminders ..... counsel for the complainant has invited our attention towards form no.3cb, under the heading statement of particulars required to be furnished under section 44 ab of the income tax act, 1961, in case of a person carrying business?. the name of assessee is mentioned as keshav trading company. in col. no.18 - particulars of payments made to persons specified under ..... . and ors., (2000) 10 scc 19, the honble apex court was pleased to hold :- the appellant had appointed joint surveyors in terms of section 64-um(2) of the insurance act, 1938. their report has been placed on the record in which a detailed account of the factors on the basis of which the joint surveyors had come to the conclusion .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-21-2013
..... only of roop pal uberoi and harpal singh uberoi. the petitioners have filed on record form-a, register of firm maintained under section 9 of the indian partnership act where name of the partners have been shown as roop pal uberoi and harpal singh uberoi. date of registration is 07.02.1992. the respondent did ..... that he continued to be the partner in the said firm. in his statement as cw-1 recorded on 04.08.2008, he admitted that the partnership-deed showed only two partners. surprisingly, the respondent did not implead his brothers r.p.uberoi and h.s.uberoi as accused. he did not lodge ..... in 1996 to ramesh chander and necessary documents were executed in his favour on 11.03.1996 by roop pal uberoi and harpal singh uberoi. the partnership firm m/s roop pal and brothers consisted only of roop pal uberoi and harpal singh uberoi. an information was given to dsidc on 28.01. ..... . he with his brothers r.p.uberoi and h.s.uberoi formed a partnership in the name and style of m/s roop pal & brothers. the industrial plot was allotted to m/s roop pal and brothers in 1990. construction ..... it reveals that the respondent filed complaint case against the petitioners for committing offences under sections 420/468/470/471/420b read with section 378/447/446 ipc. the respondent alleged that he and his two brothers applied for an industrial plot with delhi state industrial development corporation (for short dsidc) in 1976-1977 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-09-2013
..... , whereas, the complainant could not participate in the partnership since the year 1996 because of ailment of his : 4 : criminal revision no ..... commenced in the year 1997. it is apparent that no registration of partnership firm was done, as required by the provisions of the indian partnership act and therefore, the partnership did not commence. secondly, the partnership was to be commenced in the year 1997 ..... drilling company was shown to be a proprietary concern. if the fir and agreement of partnership is perused then, it was clearly mentioned in the agreement that it shall commence from the year 1997 and if the agreement is silent on any point then, the provisions of indian partnership act shall be applicable. the agreement was executed in the year 1996 and it was .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-19-2013
..... of profit or payment of contingent does not make a person partner of the firm. as per section 69 of indian partnership act no suit to inference any right arising from contract shall be instituted by or on behalf of any person suing as partner in the firm against the firm or any ..... was entitled to a declaration that she has the right to continue in possession of the suit property till the dissolution of the partnership firm. in support of his argument, learned senior counsel referred to section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 and the judgment of this court in jagdish chander gupta v. kajaria traders (india) ltd. 1964 (8) scr50and of the calcutta ..... /88 was executed. the defendant failed to prove the existence of partnership firm by producing registered partnership deed on record. the partnership deed produced on record by the defendant are not registered documents as per section 17 of indian partnership act. the documents of partnership is compulsorily registerable. section 6 of indian partnership provides mode of determining existence of partnership. it is specifically provided in this section that mere sharing .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-05-2013
..... petitioners are not liable to be proceeded against, for any criminal liability in the matter. as per section 30(3) of the indian partnership act, a minor who is admitted as a partner is not personally liable, for any liability or any acts of the firm, which cause any liability. matters being so, the crl.m.c.no. 224 o 5. proceedings against the ..... the same crl.m.c.no. 224 o 4. time, petitioners 1 and 2, who were falsely admitted in the said partnership deed, are entitled to the protection under section 30(3) of the indian partnership act as well as under section 82 of the indian penal code, as they were under the age of seven, even at the time of the constitution of the ..... has been produced as annexure-a2 which reveals that these petitioners were admitted as partners 8, 9 and 10 in the partnership deed and they were styled as minors. of course, as per section 30(1) of the indian partnership act, 1932, minors can also be admitted as partners of the firm with the consent of all the other partners at the time being ..... partnership. as far as the third petitioner is concerned, he was not even born, when he was admitted as a partner by styling .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-17-2013
..... rudradeb chowdhuri, appearing for the proposed defendants, on a query from the court, fairly submitted that the respondent no.1 was a partnership firm duly registered under the indian partnership act, 1932 and that the defendant nos.2 to 4 were the partners of the defendant no.1 and, that apart from the defendant ..... corporation proceeded on the basis that ball roll corporation was a partnership firm. both the appellant/plaintiff as well as ball roll corporation were assessed by the central excise authorities on the transactions between them. ..... filed the suit claiming that sums remained outstanding due and payable by ball roll corporation to it. ball roll corporation admittedly was a registered partnership firm of which the proposed defendant nos.2 to 4 were partners.before the revenue authorities the appellant/plaintiff as well as the ball roll ..... sole proprietorship firm of gopal rathi (a person who was not a partner of the firm) be allowed to be correctly described as a partnership firm of the defendant no.2 to 4 by the application for amendment when the claim of the plaintiff was contended to be barred by ..... , would change the nature and character of the suit. the amendments, if allowed, would convert a suit against a proprietorship concern to one against a partnership firm. he relied on all india reporter 1953 supreme court page 455 (the commissioner of income tax, west bengal v. m/s.a.w.figgis .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-27-2013
..... other transaction. 14. the second defendant filed a written statement contending as follows:- (a) the plaintiff is not a registered partnership firm ands hence there is a bar for the institution of the suit, as per section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 read with order xxx, rules 1 and 2 cpc. (b) on 16.6.1995, the plaintiff firm represented by ..... partition, as evidenced by a koorchit, is available only to properties belonging to joint families. this facility is not extended to properties owned by partnership firms. while under section 14 of the partnership act, it is possible for a partner to bring into the partnership, property belonging to him by the evidence of his intention to make it part of the assets of the ..... (1969 (82) lw 317) that whenever a division of property takes place under a deed of dissolution of partnership, the document is both a deed of dissolution as well as a deed of partition and that therefore, under section 6 of the indian stamp act, the higher duty payable for a deed of partition will be payable on the instrument. however, another full ..... bench of this court held in chief controlling revenue authority v. sarojini muthusamy (2001 (1) lw 489) that when a partnership firm is dissolved, the partners are entitled to the benefits .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-18-2013
..... of the share capital and the son of the fourth respondent holds the remaining 25%. the partnership firm purchased 26 acres of property in survey nos.98/2c and 88/2c at ..... authorities from interfering in a partnership dispute relating to the management of a mineral water unit at trichy.2. the petitioner is stated to be the managing partner of m/s.adam & eve aqua food products, trichy, a firm registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act. the petitioner holds 75% ..... settled. the court is not the venue to wash the dirty linen. the petitioner made a deliberate attempt to drag on the proceedings related to partnership dispute. this writ petition is not an exception.8. in the result, the writ petition is dismissed. consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also ..... to give a cause of action to file a writ petition. the documents produced by the fourth respondent clearly shows that there was a partnership dispute between the petitioner and the son of the fourth respondent. there is nothing on record to show that the police have interfered in ..... the constitution of india for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein from in anyway interfering in the partnership firm of the petitioner either directly or indirectly at the instance of the fourth and fifth respondents. !for petitioners ... mr.veera kathiravan ^for .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-06-2013
..... a fresh lease on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. explanation to section 4 stated that for the purposes of act 15 of 1992, notwithstanding anything in the indian partnership act, 1932, the act of a lessee in entering into a partnership agreement or other cognate agreement for carrying on any activity whatsoever on the demised plot shall be deemed to be a violation ..... in w.a.741/1993). thus, in view of the said explanation to section 3 (which provides that where a lessee enters into a partnership agreement in respect of the demised plot, then notwithstanding anything in the indian partnership act, 1932, it shall also be deemed to be in violation of the conditions of the lease), the judgment of the civil court in o ..... common judgment dt.18.08.1994 in w.p.12180/1994 relying on explanation to section 4 in act 15 of 1992 (which stated that where a lessee enters into a partnership agreement in respect of the demised plot, then notwithstanding anything in the indian partnership act, 1932, they shall also be deemed to be in violation of the conditions of the lease).74. the ..... of 1992 (as amended) which treated such assignment as a violation of the conditions of the lease notwithstanding anything contained in the indian partnership act, 1932 (vide goa glass fibre limited v. state of goa and another8) and therefore the respondents are entitled to take into account the conduct of petitioner by 1984 as a .....Tag this Judgment!