Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 2013 Page 3 of about 660 results (0.063 seconds)

Mar 05 2013 (HC)

Vinayak Ranum D.P. Loundo Vs. Ms. Amira A. Razaq and Others

Court : Mumbai Goa

Decided on : Mar-05-2013

..... was not a partner of m/s. ranum d. p. loundo and co. the tribunal also found that the partnership was in existence in the year 1950 without noting that the partnership firm is stated to be a partnership firm duly registered under the indian partnership act, 1956 as can be found from the cause title in case no. rent/arc/5/1994. it is common ..... knowledge that the said act was not in force in the year 1950. though the tribunal has noted that in the ..... his vehicles and therefore he is liable for eviction under section 22(2)(i) of the said rent control act. the contention of the respondents essentially was upon the fact that the petitioner had sublet the suit premises in favour of the partnership firm m/s r. d. p. loundo. it is further their contention that in view of the fact that ..... was incumbent upon the authorities below to ascertain as to whether the parking of the vehicles of the partnership firm m/s r. d. p. loundo would result in subletting within the meaning of section 22(2)(b)(i) of the rent control act. 11. in the judgment reported in 1987(3) scc 538, in the case of helper girdharbhai v/s .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 28 2013 (HC)

Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar Senior Advocate with Vs. the Punjab Agro Indu ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-28-2013

..... in the absence of specific authority to accept notice to any other partner. the legal effect of interplay of section 19 and section 22 of the indian partnership act has also been brought out in a decision of the madras high court in m/s. alagappa cotton mills, rajapalayam vs. indo burmah trading corporation ..... to bind partners cannot include a right of representation in arbitral proceedings without any notice. section 24 cannot be allowed to eclipse section 22 of the partnership act. there ought to be a harmonious construction with a full play of both provisions. the supreme court was actually considering a case where the liability for ..... of rajasthan (2005) 7 scc 30.to contend that a notice to one partner will bind the other partners as well, in view of section 24 of partnership act. the said decision spells out three circumstances when notice to one partner will bind other partners:- (a) notice must be given to a partner (b) ..... relevant statutory provision 3. the issue of whether the service of notice to one of the partners is sufficient could be seen from the textual reference to the partnership act itself. section 19 reads as follows:- 19. implied authority of partner as agent of the firm- (1) fao no.5066 of 2003 -4- subject to ..... that there is no implied authority for any one party to refer the matter to arbitration under section 19(2) of the partnership act and therefore, one of the partners kewal singh could not have a lawful authority to represent the other partners and submit to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 10 2013 (HC)

Smt. Bommidipati Madha Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by Publi

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-10-2013

..... of firm would also discloses that the registrar of firms, andhra pradesh, acknowledges the receipt of the statement prescribed under section 58(1) of indian partnership act.13. at this stage, the learned counsel for the respondent objected for looking into the said document by contending that the plea taken by the ..... of registration of firms issued by the registrar of firms, dated 19.11.2007 establish that sri sai santhosh constructions was represented as a partnership firm in the year 2007 itself. therefore, there is no irregularity or illegality in petitioner issuing the cheque as an authorized signatory of the ..... by him, wherein the petitioner was portrayed as a sole proprietress of sai santosh constructions, it cannot, now, be contended that it is a partnership firm. since the issues involved herein are disputed questions of fact, he submits that the same have to be established during the course of trial ..... determination is whether the petitioner is a proprietress of a firm or a managing partner of a partnership firm?.10. before proceeding further, it would be relevant to extract section 138(c) of the act which reads as under:- provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless:- (c) ..... taken in sheoratan agarwal v. state of m.p.6, and clarifying judgment in anil hada v. indian acylic ltd7, held that for maintaining a prosecution under section 141 of the act, arraying of a company as an accused is imperative and other categories of offenders can only be brought .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 10 2013 (HC)

Shri Satish Kumar Jhunjhunwala Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Oct-10-2013

..... has failed to appear: provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the provisions of section 30 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (9 of 1932). (2) where the decree-holder claims to be entitled to cause the decree to be executed against any person ..... between the judgement-debtor firm and the union of india, such that in consonance with the general principle laid out in section 25 of the partnership act he can be made personally liable. accordingly, unless the claim of the decreeholder that the decree should be passed against the partners personally has ..... referred to provisions efa (os) 36/2013 page 12 of section 32(2) of the partnership act, which provides that a retiring partner may be discharged from any liability to a third party for acts of the firm done before his retirement by an agreement made by him with such third party ..... learned single judge, nor in the present appeal proceedings has mr. jhunjhunwala raised any questions as to this document, or even generally as to his partnership at the time of signing the contract, and thus, his liability.12. rather, the primary argument put forward by mr. jhunjhunwala is that the ..... this court is established. further, learned counsel submits that the judgment-debtor firm named mr. jhunjunwala, the appellant/petitioner, as a partner in the partnership deed submitted to the railway board vide letter dated 11.05.1987 at the time of awarding the contract. moreover, in similar terms, the judgement-debtor .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 25 2013 (HC)

M/S. Balaji Marble Mines, Makrana Vs. State (Chief Secretary) and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Jul-25-2013

..... the respondent rakesh dhariwal made an abortive attempt to unsettle and dwindle the same and in his that pursuit laid an application under section 64 of the indian partnership act 1932 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as act of 1932) before the registrar of firms on 20th of september 2010. taking cognizance of the said application of the respondent, the registrar served notice ..... spurious signatures and preparation of fabricated documents are serious in nature on which a thorough enquiry is required. depriving an individual from his right and interest in a [16] partnership firm by practicing alleged fraud is an issue of great significance which requires thorough probe. despite availability of umpteen materials including the rfsl report supporting the cause of the ..... aukna, bhanwarlal choudhary, rakesh kumar dhariwal and kana ram burdak (petitioner in s.b. civil writ petition no. 9873 of 2011) started business of marble mining and trading. the partnership deed was duly registered with the registrar of firms on 17th of november 2008. as transpired from the averments in the petition, uptil march 2009 the firm continued its pursuit ..... at the instance of one of the partners of the firm who is alleged to have retired after reconstitution of the partnership. the court further proceeded to make following observations to circumscribe the provisions contained under section 64 of the act of 1932 in para 24 of the order:24. as noticed above, the registrar had simply no jurisdiction whatsoever .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 25 2013 (HC)

Kana Ram Burdak Vs. State (Chief Secretary) and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Jul-25-2013

..... the respondent rakesh dhariwal made an abortive attempt to unsettle and dwindle the same and in his that pursuit laid an application under section 64 of the indian partnership act 1932 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as act of 1932) before the registrar of firms on 20th of september 2010. taking cognizance of the said application of the respondent, the registrar served notice ..... spurious signatures and preparation of fabricated documents are serious in nature on which a thorough enquiry is required. depriving an individual from his right and interest in a [16] partnership firm by practicing alleged fraud is an issue of great significance which requires thorough probe. despite availability of umpteen materials including the rfsl report supporting the cause of the ..... aukna, bhanwarlal choudhary, rakesh kumar dhariwal and kana ram burdak (petitioner in s.b. civil writ petition no. 9873 of 2011) started business of marble mining and trading. the partnership deed was duly registered with the registrar of firms on 17th of november 2008. as transpired from the averments in the petition, uptil march 2009 the firm continued its pursuit ..... at the instance of one of the partners of the firm who is alleged to have retired after reconstitution of the partnership. the court further proceeded to make following observations to circumscribe the provisions contained under section 64 of the act of 1932 in para 24 of the order:24. as noticed above, the registrar had simply no jurisdiction whatsoever .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 16 2013 (HC)

M/S.Kovai Auto Spares Vs. New Able Automobiles

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jul-16-2013

..... legally justified in ordering remand when the respondent neither produced any additional evidence nor sought a remand except to meet sec.69(2) of the indian partnership act? 3. the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the purpose of remand is to permit the respondent adduce further evidence and that the ..... appeal: (i) has not the lower appellate court overlooked sec.69(2) of indian partnership act to hold that the suit is maintainable? (ii) can ext.a1 statement of account, which is not certified under sec.65b of indian evidence act, be relied on in evidence? (iii) with evidence on record clearly establishing ext ..... respondent were not accounted. the trial court dismissed the suit on two grounds - that, it is not shown that the respondent is a registered partnership firm and that ext.a1, account statement is not genuine. the respondent challenged that judgment and decree in a.s.no.13 of 2010. the ..... to adduce further evidence to substantiate the claim of the respondent.5. so far as power to remand is concerned, it is not inhibited by any act or omission of the party (see remco industries home co-operative society vs. lakshmeesha & ors. - air 200.sc 3167). nor is it ..... in a suit on account, has not the lower appellate court acted contrary to sec.34 of the indian evidence act in ordering remand and granting opportunity for its corroboration by adducing further evidence? (iv) has the lower appellate court acted illegally in overlooking the mandate of order xli, rule 24 of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 2013 (HC)

Present:- Mr. O.P. Hoshiarpuri Advocate Vs. State of Punjab and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-16-2013

..... no.1 is joint and several not only in terms of the agreement and the deed by the guarantor but in terms of statutory provision of section 25 of the indian partnership act, 1932. such aspect was clarified in appeal by the secretary, cooperation, punjab wherein it was observed as under: the bank has given the loan to the company through its partners ..... .07.2004 (p-2).learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the liability of the petitioners is to the extent of 1/3 share each in terms of the partnership deed entered between the parties. since the petitioners have paid their share, they cannot be called upon to make payment of the remaining share of the other partners.we do ..... .02.2010 passed in revision by secretary, cooperation, punjab (p-3).the petitioners and one lalita goyal were partners of the firm m/s sai mohan das brick company. the partnership firm availed the cash credit limit of ` 4,80,000/- from ferozepur central cooperative bank ltd.ferozepur-respondent no.1. since the amount was not paid, therefore, in terms of ..... per the agreement executed by them with the bank. in view of the above, we do not find any jurisidictional error in the orders passed by the authorities under the act, which may warrant interference by this court. dismissed. (hemant gupta) judge (ritu bahri) judge january 16, 2013 g.arora/vimal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 2013 (HC)

The Consulate General of Iran Vs. M/S. Baldota Brothers

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-18-2013

..... causes at bombay by the respondents/original plaintiffs invoking section 41 of the presidency small causes courts act, 1882 alleging that the respondents/original plaintiffs are a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. the partnership firm is the owner and landlord of the building known as ??baldota bhavan ? . a portion ..... possession of the suit premises and once they have acquired another property. it is clear that the suit has been instituted by a partnership firm and a suit can be instituted by the partners in the name of their firm. the procedural aspects have also been complied ..... /original plaintiffs, submits that the suit in this case was clearly maintainable. the suit was filed by the original plaintiffs, which is a partnership firm. in law, a firm cannot be seen de-hors its partners. therefore, the suit can be filed in the name of a ..... be borne in mind. the interpretation of the provisions of code of civil procedure must be in consonance with the basic principles of the indian constitution. ? 39. in the light of these pronouncements, there is absolutely no necessity of deciding any wider question and in the context ..... they are a ??diplomatic mission ? , then, they are covered by the term/word ??foreign mission ? appearing in section 3(1)(b) of the maharashtra rent control act, 1999. mr. madon submits that the term ??foreign mission ? , ??international agencies ? and ??multi-national companies ? are grouped together, because there is an international .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 03 2013 (HC)

M/S.Rollon Steels, Khairtabad, Hyuderaba Vs. A.P.Transco Ltd.,(Formerl ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-03-2013

..... who was no longer a partner of the firm, was shown as its representative. he submits that as per section 32 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (for short, 'the act').the obligation on the part of the erstwhile partners.ceases, on their retirement and that the respondent ought to have impleaded the existing ..... may retire,- (a) with the consent of all the other partners.(b) in accordance with an express agreement by the partners.or (c) where the partnership is at will, by giving notice in writing to all the other partners of his intention to retire. (2) a retiring partner may be discharged from ..... whether dw.1 established that he ceased to be the managing partner of the appellant's firm?. ii) assuming that dw.1 retired from the partnership, whether he can be held liable for the suit claim?. point no.(i):- the suit was filed for recovery of amount, which represented the cost ..... evidence on record, the trial court framed the following issues for consideration: 1) ".whether the managing partner of the defendant's firm retired from the partnership even before the filing of the suit?. 2) whether the defendant's managing partner is not a necessary party to the suit?. 3) whether k ..... was issued by the respondent inviting tenders for entrustment of work of conversion of steel billets into steel bars.the tender submitted by the appellant, a partnership firm, was accepted on 10.08.1982 and the contract was awarded. under the contract, the respondent would supply the billets and the appellant, .....

Tag this Judgment!


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