Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 2013 Page 2 of about 660 results (0.064 seconds)

Jan 29 2013 (HC)

Vitthal Janardan Phadke Vs. Prabhakar Mohiniraj Wable and Others

Court : Mumbai Aurangabad

Decided on : Jan-29-2013

..... award of majority of arbitrators was upheld limited to the point of declaration that the partnership firm stood dissolved and rest of the award was set aside. [i] the partnership deed contains clauses, which read as follows:- "13. the partnership shall be governed by tall provisions of the indian partnership act, save and as otherwise provided that the firm shall not be dissolved by reasons of ..... the letters patent appeal no.51/2002 as modified in review application no.8367/2003, present applicant mr. vitthal phadke was permitted to operate the license "till the dispute regarding partnership is decided by the court". this review order is dated 7.4.2003. 9] much water has flown down the bridge between 2003 till october 2012 when the judgment in ..... done at page no.34, namely:- "we, therefore, hold that the respondent no.1 prabhakar wable alone is entitled to claim renewal of license from the authorities independent of the partnership firm, if same is otherwise permissible in accordance with the law." (quoted from paragraph no.24 of the judgment in lpa 146/2012 page no.34 of the ca 321 ..... no.8367/2003 in letters patent appeal no.51/2002 and maintained in the hon'ble supreme court, would govern the arrangement only until the question as to existence of partnership was to be ruled by courts and not any further. 14] in the result, the argument that the judgment suffers from error apparent on the face of record only represents .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 2013 (HC)

Vinubhai Najibhai Chavda Vs. Maheshkumar Ramchandra Raval

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Feb-20-2013

..... . whether the courts below have failed to construe and interpret the provisions of sec. 63(3)(a) of the indian partnership act? 2. whether the courts below have failed to construe and interpret the provisions of sec.69 of the indian partnership act? 3. whether the courts below have erred in appreciating the facts and material evidence on record as the defendant has ..... . dave learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the suit was filed for rendition of accounts of partnership business after the partnership stood dissolved and, therefore, suit of the plaintiff was maintainable. he ..... specifically denied about any existence of a partnership and, therefore, the courts below have committed an error of law in appreciating the ..... evidence and deciding the claim of the appellant-original plaintiff with reference to sec. 69 of the indian partnership act? 6. i have heard learned advocates for the parties. mr. kirtidev r .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 01 2013 (HC)

Flsmidth Pvt.Ltd Vs. Secan Invescast India Pltd

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-01-2013

..... limits. the learned senior counsel submitted that on a plain reading of the provisions of sections 36 and 54 of the indian partnership act, it is clear that non-solicitation clauses always stood outside the purview of section 27 of the act.42. indian partnership act, 1930 makes provision for enabling partners to impose covenants of restraint of trade in certain cases. because of elements of mutuality ..... solicitation they have actually supplied castings. when there is such an alternative remedy, question of issuing a prohibitory injunction does not arise.41. drawing our attention to the provisions of indian partnership act - sections 36 and 54, the learned senior counsel for appellant mr.vijay narayan submitted that upon a fair interpretation of section 27 as the whole and other provisions of ..... reasonable restrictions are imposed. the business agreement between the appellant and the respondent cannot be said to be an act of partnership so as to interpret the terms of the agreement in conjunction with the provisions of indian partnership act.43. the materials produced by the appellant are not sufficient to arrive at a clear finding that the respondent solicited the customers of the ..... that non-solicitation clauses always stood outside the purview of section 27. drawing our attention to section 36(2) of the indian partnership act, the learned counsel submitted that a partner may make an agreement with his partners that on ceasing to be a partner he will not carry on any business similar .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 21 2013 (HC)

Santosh Devi Vs. Firm Raghubir Singh Kasera Gokal Bazar Rewari and Oth ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-21-2013

..... the cases was on the letter pad of defendant no.1 firm.19. section 45 of the indian partnership act, 1932 deals with the liability for acts of partners done after dissolution. it provides as follows:- 45. liability for acts of partners done after dissolution. (1) notwithstanding the dissolution of a firm, the partners continue ..... presumed to be continuing till notice is given of the dissolution. as per the specific provisions of section 45 of the indian partnership act, 1932 the liability of the partner of a registered partnership firm is not absolved till there is a public notice of dissolution of the firm. the substantial question of law which ..... arises in this appeal is decided accordingly.21. in this case even the partnership account in the bank was continued. defendants no.2 & 3, both have been signing as partners of defendant no.1 firm even after the date ..... which arises for consideration in this appeal is as follows:- whether in the absence of proof of any dissolution deed, a partner of a registered partnership firm can get absolved from the liabilities of firm?.16. the loan in civil suit no.499 of 1979 was advanced on 24.8.1976 ..... is as to whether on the above dates or afterwards whether jagan nath had been acting as partner of defendant no.1 firm or he has given notice to public or business world of his retiring from partnership of firm m/s raghubir singh kasera.17. admittedly, m/s raghubir singh kasera .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 17 2013 (HC)

Sambhu Nath Agarwal Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Sep-17-2013

..... of the private respondents, however, it has been submitted that the licence in this case was granted in favour of a partnership firm and under the provisions of section 42 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the firm stood dissolved on death of said madhusudan dey. the aforesaid provisions stipulates:- 42. dissolution of the happening ..... the documents which are required to be filed on behalf of the firm. on the other hand, under section 18 of the partnership act 1932, each partner of the firm is entitled to act as agent of other partner/partners. 7. on the same issue, there is an authority of this court (w.p. ..... of the food & supplies department, government of west bengal, for revalidation or renewal of the licence, which was originally issued in the name of the partnership concern. in such circumstances, the writ petitioner s prayer to allow her to continue to run the fair price shop under amherst street sub-area in ..... in existence so long as the will of those individuals to remain joined as partners subsists. in the absence of such will to continue with the partnership agreement, the same shall stand dissolved automatically. in the facts of the instant case, as observed hereinbefore, the legal heirs of the deceased partner ..... no.4443 (w) of 2011 godabari devi vs. the state of west bengal & ors. decided on 08.02.2013) and in this judgment it has been held:- a partnership concern, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 26 2013 (HC)

M/S. Marine Diesel Service Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and O ...

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Sep-26-2013

..... hearing: 17.09.2013 i. mahanty, j.date of judgment: 26.09.2013 the petitioner-m/s. marine diesel service claiming to be a registered firm, registered under the indian partnership act, has filed the present writ application with a prayer seeking direction to the opposite party (bharat petroleum corporation ltd.) no.to finalise the 2 tender of the petitioner-firm as ..... partnership being invalid, your firm failed to qualify in the technical bid. you were orally informed by the technical evaluation committee accordingly. ..... four following conditions needed to be fulfilled: (i) it must be a company, association or partnership consisting of more than twenty persons. (ii) it must no.have been registered as a company under the companies act no.must it have been formed in pursuance of some other indian law. (iii) it must have been formed for the purpose of carrying on any business ..... of carrying on any other business that has for its object the acquisition of gain by the company, association or partnership, or by the individual members thereof, unless it is registered as a company under this act, or is formed in pursuance of some other indian law. . since your partnership firm exceeded twenty partners and it was neither incorporated as a company, your .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 04 2013 (HC)

Khaja Mohideen Vs. M.Mohammed Saliha

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-04-2013

..... particular person has chosen to include himself as a partner of a firm will not result in incorporation of all his individual properties as the assets of the partnership. section 14 of the indian partnership act, 1932 says: 14. subject to contract between the partners, the property of the firm includes all property and rights and interests in property originally brought into the stock ..... , all the assets with aid of which the business was carried on by the plaintiff must be deemed in law to have become partnership assets, under the deed of partnership, dated march 16, 1953. section 14 of the partnership act, 1932, provides: subject to contract between the partners, the property of the firm includes all property and rights and interests in property originally brought ..... firm as his contribution thereto without a registered instrument, as soon as a partner intends that his separate properties should become partnership properties and they are treated as such, then by virtue of the provisions of the contract act and the partnership act,the properties become the properties of the firm.16. in a full bench decision of this court in air1970madras 5 [chief ..... court reported in 1969 (3) scc555[arjun kanoji tankar v. santaram kanoji tankar]. wherein their lordships have observed that in order to bring the matter under section 14 of the partnership act, it must be shown that there is an agreement express or implied that the property was has to be treated as the property of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 01 2013 (HC)

Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanguine Technical Publishers ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jul-01-2013

..... of respondent nos. 2 and 3. it is also pertinent to note that there was no public notice under sub-section (3) of section 32 of the indian partnership act by respondent nos. 2 and 3. even if there was a public notice, it may not alter the position as the alleged liabilities of respondent nos. ..... observed thus: respondent nos. 2 and 3 have contended that the appellant was aware of the dissolution of the partnership but that by itself will not absolve the liability of the retiring partners. section 32 of the indian partnership act, 1932, reads as follow:"32 retirement of a partner. (1) a partner may retire:(a) with the ..... consent off all the other partners. (b) in accordance with the express agreement by the partners, or (c) where the partnership is at will, by giving notice in writing ..... respondent no. 4 after his resignation and thus the respondent no. 4s rights are to be treated as per the provisions of the partnership act, 1932.41. it is well settled principle of law that the retired partner shall not be discharged from the liability any third party for the ..... the firm after the third party has the knowledge about the retirement. this is evident from the provisions of section 32 of the partnership act, 1932.42. the supreme court of india has approved this principle of liability of the retired partner towards the third party for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 2013 (HC)

K.Kotaoah and Others Vs. Koganti Siva Pras

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jun-06-2013

..... is not a case where any amount is payable under a contract or other legal obligations to contract the provisions under section 69 of the indian partnership act (for short, 'the act'). the evidence of the 2nd defendant clearly goes to show that he has consciously executed all the documents and the income tax return also ..... the other defendants?. 2) whether the suit is bad for want of registration of the 1st defendant firm and not maintainable under section 69 of the indian partnership act?.9. points: though the 2nd defendant has raised several contentions in the written statement, in his evidence he admits the execution of the agreement. ex ..... and there is no material as to what is the difference of a registration of a firm for the purpose of income tax or under the partnership act. in fact, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants also even if to be accepted that the 1st defendant firm is not ..... is not a registered one though the plaintiff failed to produce the particulars of the registration or the particulars of the persons in whose name the partnership was recorded.11. so far as the consideration is concerned, ex.a.12 though a deed of dissolution clearly shows that there was an undertaking ..... on 12.01.1979, accounts between partners were looked into and an amount of rs.76,553/- became due to the plaintiff from the dissolved partnership by the date or dissolution. an amount of rs.26,553/- was adjusted to the plaintiff on that day either by payment in cash or by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 01 2013 (TRI)

Kishore Shriram SaThe Vs. Vivek Gajanan Joshi

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Oct-01-2013

..... had been filed within the limitation period. with regard to the first question it is seen from agreement placed on record that it was between sayali builders, a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act of 1932 and the petitioner. it is clearly mentioned in the agreement that agreement of development dated 20.06.1987 executed between shri eknath daduji nikam, shri shanatram ..... joined as parties, the things could have been looked with difference but, it is not the case before us. considering the provisions of indian partnership act, inter se relationship between the partners of a firm is governed by the partnership agreement. therefore, to file a consumer complaint in the personal name of the opponent and that to describe him as a builder and developer ..... eknath nigam and sou sadhana shantaram nikam constitutes parternship firm between shri eknath daduji nikam owner of the land and the builder shri vivek gajanand joshi by the deed of partnership ..... .e., the other partner of sayali builder breathed his last on 06.05.1998 and the firm sayali builders had only two partners and as per section 42 of the partnership act with the demise of one partner the firm is dissolved and only mr. vivek gajanand joshi (respondent) was left who can sue or be sued. the state commission has .....

Tag this Judgment!


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