Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 2013 Page 4 of about 660 results (0.059 seconds)

May 31 2013 (HC)

Cico Technologies Ltd. Vs. M/S Shriram Enterprises and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-31-2013

..... the partnership deed (which has not been put on record) did not give implicit consent for a partner to represent the firm. therefore, the argument is that, since only ..... 8(2) of the act. he relied upon n.radhakrishnan vs. maestro engineers, (2010) 1 scc 72.to substantiate his claim that a reference to arbitration cannot be made if the procedural requirements (of filing the original arbitration agreement) have not been satisfied.17. the final argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is hinged on the indian partnership act. he argued that ..... (iii) 5. b-9, rajouri garden, new delhi-110027. shop nos.23 and 24, vashist complex, m.g.road, sikander pur, gurgaon-122002 (haryana). admittedly, respondent no.1 is a partnership firm. respondents no.2 & 3 are the partners of respondent no.1 who have acknowledged the delivery of the goods. the respondents have also not denied the outstanding amount dues ..... in both the matters are common, thus, the same are being disposed of with single order.2. the petitioner and respondent no.1, m/s shriram enterprises, which is a partnership firm, entered into a distributorship agreement dated 5th november, 2009 for the supply of water proofing chemicals. as per the agreement, the respondents would submit purchase orders, which would be .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 2013 (HC)

Cico Technologies Ltd. Vs. M/S Shriram Enterprises and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-31-2013

..... the partnership deed (which has not been put on record) did not give implicit consent for a partner to represent the firm. therefore, the argument is that, since only ..... 8(2) of the act. he relied upon n.radhakrishnan vs. maestro engineers, (2010) 1 scc 72.to substantiate his claim that a reference to arbitration cannot be made if the procedural requirements (of filing the original arbitration agreement) have not been satisfied.17. the final argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is hinged on the indian partnership act. he argued that ..... (iii) 5. b-9, rajouri garden, new delhi-110027. shop nos.23 and 24, vashist complex, m.g.road, sikander pur, gurgaon-122002 (haryana). admittedly, respondent no.1 is a partnership firm. respondents no.2 & 3 are the partners of respondent no.1 who have acknowledged the delivery of the goods. the respondents have also not denied the outstanding amount dues ..... in both the matters are common, thus, the same are being disposed of with single order.2. the petitioner and respondent no.1, m/s shriram enterprises, which is a partnership firm, entered into a distributorship agreement dated 5th november, 2009 for the supply of water proofing chemicals. as per the agreement, the respondents would submit purchase orders, which would be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 16 2013 (HC)

Ahammed Koya Vs. United Bank of India

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Aug-16-2013

..... period of two weeks from today.2. it is asserted that the entire sale consideration was pooled from the second petitioner partnership of which the first petitioner is the managing partner. needless to say that the benefit of section 14 of the indian partnership act, 1932 can be called in aid under such circumstances. the review petition is disposed of. v.chitambaresh, judge. nj .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 2013 (HC)

Peekay Enterprises Vs. Northern Coalfields Ltd

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-13-2013

..... certified copy of the registration annexure-a-8c, and, therefore, prima-facie it is seen that the firm is registered in accordance to the requirement of section 59 of the indian partnership act. a.c.no.23/2010 peekay enterprises versus northern coalfields lmt. & ors.so far as delay in raising claim is concerned, the same warrants enquiry into factual aspect of the ..... . it is further clarified that all the objections raised by respondent no.1 with regard to delay in raising the claim and the question of registration or otherwise of the partnership firm is to be decided by the arbitrator, after hearing all concerned in accordance with law. with the aforesaid, the application is allowed and disposed of. (rajendra menon) judge nd ..... smt. amrit ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner. shri greeshm jain, learned counsel for the respondents. this is an application filed under section 11 (6) of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitral tribunal for adjudication of the dispute that has risen between the parties. an agreement annexure-a1 was entered into between the parties on 22 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2013 (HC)

K.N.Unnikrishnan Vs. M/S.St.George Bankers and Kuries

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jan-31-2013

..... as mandated under the act. plaintiffs have asserted that they have got such registration of the 1st plaintiff firm at cuttak also. maintainability of the suit as barred under section 69 (2 ..... section (4) of section 69 of the act with respect to firms or to partners in firms which have no place of business in the territories to which the aforesaid act extended. when that be so, a firm registered at jammu if it carries its business operations within the territories to which the indian partnership act, 1932 applies, has to get it registered ..... other contentions to resist the suit claim amending the original written statement, petitioners/defendants impeached the maintainability of the suit as barred under section 69 (2) of the partnership act, for short, the 'act'. plaintiffs thereupon produced documents to show that it has got registration not only in jammu and kashmir but also in cuttak, orissa. the issues relating to jurisdiction and ..... that the court has jurisdiction and also the suit is not barred under section 69 (2) of the act repelling the contentions of the petitioners/defendants, is challenged in the above revision.2. learned counsel for petitioners/defendants adverting to the partnership deeds which had been produced by the plaintiffs before the registrar of firms at jammu & kashmir, and also .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 2013 (HC)

M/S. Gurudev Developers Vs. Kurla Konkan Niwas Chs Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-20-2013

..... pleadings following issues came to be framed by justice ganoo on 13th august, 2008 which are answered as follows: issues1. do the plaintiffs prove that plaintiffs is a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act?yes2. if answer, to issue no.1 is in the negative whether the suit is maintainable?not required to be answered3. do the plaintiffs prove that the termination ..... entitled to receive and the defendant would be bound to pay reasonable expenses on account of that much construction under section 70 of the indian contract act which runs thus: 70. obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act. ?? where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other ..... .4. hence this issue is also not required to be answered. issue no.8 20. the plaintiff has not given notice u/s.164 of the maharashtra co-operative societies act, 1961. the plaintiff had to construct the society building. the business of the society is not to construct the building. the business of the society is for residential purpose since ..... of the suit agreement?notrequiredto be answered8. do the defendants prove that the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under section 164 of the maharashtra co-operative societies act, 1961?no9. what order?as per final order.3. the plaintiff has examined himself and another witness who has sought to corroborate the plaintiff's evidence. the defendants have not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 22 2013 (HC)

Sarita Devi Vs. Suresh Kumar and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-22-2013

..... against the order passed by the court below rejecting application under order 7 rule 11. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, no suit could be entertained by the court below on behalf of unregistered firm. thus, application under order 7 rule 11 ought to have been accepted. i have heard learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 25 2013 (TRI)

Gopinath Nagar ?a? Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. Vs. M/S. Nandan Builders a ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Sep-25-2013

k.s. chaudhari, presiding member this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 28.07.2011 passed by the maharashtra state consumer disputes redressal commission, mumbai, (in short, the state commission) in appeal no. a/11/574 gopinath nagar vs. m/s. nandan builders and ors. by which, appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed at admission stage. 2. brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner filed complaint before district forum and prayed for direction to the op/respondent to execute deed of convenience in favour of the complainant no.1/society and further direction to ops to complete the incomplete work and further prayed for compensation along with interest. learned district forum partly allowed the complaint and directed op to execute conveyance deed, but did not grant other reliefs against which, appeal filed by the complainant/petitioner was not admitted against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay. 3. heard learned counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record. 4. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of financial crunch, revision petition could not be filed in time; hence, delay in filing revision petition be condoned. 5. in the application for condonation of delay, period of delay to be condoned has not been mentioned, but as per office report, there is delay of 372 days in filing revision petition. paragraph .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 19 2013 (HC)

RadhA.N. Vs. Deepa Restaurant

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Nov-19-2013

..... arbitration and aconcilation act, 1996. the contention that there would be bifurcation of cause of action or ..... questions arising in or relating to the management and administration of the partnership business and any difference of opinion between the persons either as regards to any provision in the partnership deed or any other matters relating to the business shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of the indian arbitration act, which was then in force, which is presently replaced by the ..... afore quoted would show that there is an arbitration clause. now the question is whether the non production of the original partnership deed or a duly certified copy by the defendant who sought reference under sec. 8 (1) of the act is fatal and whether the impugned order liable to be set aside on c.r.p. no. 63 of 2012 -:5 ..... questions arising in or relating to the management and administration of the partnership business and any difference of opinion between the persons either as regards to any provision in this deed or any other matters relating to the business shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of the indian arbitration act then in force." one of the contentions vehemently advanced by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 21 2013 (HC)

Deepak Kumar Vs. Smt. Ranjna Rani and Another

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-21-2013

..... dated 9.4.2007 annexure p/3 was prepared between the parties, but the said partnership deed could not be acted upon because indian oil corporation (ioc) did not allow the plaintiff to run the filling station in partnership and therefore, the plaintiff is sole proprietor in possession of the disputed filling station. defendants controverted the version of the plaintiff and pleaded that as ..... per partnership deed annexure p/3, they joined as active partners of the disputed filling station with ..... the parties that licence for running the disputed filling station has been granted by ioc. however, ioc has not granted permission to the plaintiff to run the filling station in partnership with the defendants. consequently, the defendants cannot be allowed to run the filling station with plaintiff as partners.tiwana dalbir singh 2013.08.23 10:56 i attest to the ..... accuracy and integrity of this document. high court, chandigarh civil revision no.2392 of 2013 -3- in addition to the aforesaid, partnership deed annexure p/3 is also unregistered and therefore, on the basis of the same, the defendants cannot claim right to run the filling station. in view of the aforesaid .....

Tag this Judgment!


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