Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 2014 Page 1 of about 803 results (0.077 seconds)

Jan 29 2014 (HC)

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. Shriji Enterprises Erandol ...

Court : Mumbai Aurangabad

Decided on : Jan-29-2014

..... recovery of lease amount. the dispute which has arisen between the parties is, whether plaintiffs who have styled themselves as "shreeji enterprises erandol" and shown themselves as partners, is a partnership under the indian partnership act, 1932 ("partnership act" in brief). 2. prakash bhatia and other three arrayed above, have filed the suit claiming that the property in dispute was leased out to defendants ..... filed written statement and inter-alia, contended that the plaint discloses that suit is filed by partnership firm but the entire plaint does not disclose that said partnership firm is registered and so the suit is bad on account of provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act. the trial court has heard the parties and passed orders below exhibit1, framing issue, whether the ..... indian oil corporation by one sarla bahubali gangwal. the plaintiffs purchased the suit property from sarla bahubali gangwal by registered sale deed, with right to the lease rent and as the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 2014 (HC)

Minochar @ Minoo Aspandyar Irani Vs. Deenyar Sheriar Jehani and Others

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-22-2014

..... . 62. in so far as submission of mr. tulzapurkar, learned senior counsel that in view of section 9, 12, 14 to 16 and 19 of indian partnership act, 1932, every partner is entitled to have access to accounts, participate and carry out the business of the firm, respondent nos. 1 to 5 cannot prevent ..... . 6 is not a registered partner, this arbitration petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in view of bar under section 69(3) of the indian partnership act 1932. 50. in so far as submission of mr. tulzapurkar, learned senior counsel that respondent nos. 1 to 5 have fabricated the supplementary deed dated ..... able to take any steps to seek appointment of an arbitrator. it is submitted by the learned senior counsel that under section 12(d) of the indian partnership act 1932, every partner has a right to access, to inspect and copy any of the books of the firm. 44. it is submitted by the ..... a partner and therefore the respondent no.6 could not have filed a petition in his own name. it is submitted that section 69 of the indian partnership act prohibits filing of proceeding by such a partner. this petition has been filed by the respondent no 6 . it is submitted that even the verification ..... transfer their respective share to the other partners. learned senior counsel placed reliance on section 9, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 19 of the indian partnership act 1932 and submits that all the partners are bound to carry on the business of the firm for the common advantage of all the partners and have .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 2014 (HC)

Jayraj Devidas and Others Vs. Nilesh Shantilal Tank and Another

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-22-2014

..... of the funds and so on. ajay arora (of group "a") filed a civil suit which was held to be not-maintainable in view of section 69(3) of the indian partnership act, 1932; the name of ajay arora having not been shown in the register of firms as a partner of the firm. according to group "a", a notice was issued on ..... a suit. 17. on conjoint reading of section 69 of the indian partnership act with section 33 and 34 of the bombay stamps act makes it clear that effect of non registration of a partnership firm would be on the suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by the indian partnership act filed on or behalf of any person showing as a partner in ..... that the supreme court after considering the provisions under section 69 (2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 which provides for effect of non registration of a partnership firm has held that an unregistered partnership firm is not prevented from filing an application under section 9 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996. the court while granting interim measures has to prima facie come to the ..... case of firm ashok traders (supra) relied upon by mr.jahagirdar, learned senior counsel is concerned, the supreme court has considered the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act while considering an maintainability of an application under section 9 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996. it is held by the supreme court that under the scheme of the arbitration and conciliation .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 03 2014 (HC)

A.B.P. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Jyoti JaIn and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Sep-03-2014

..... recovery of money on the strength of promissory notes. the defendant claimed retirement from the firm which issued the promissory note. in such context, sections 45 and 72 of the indian partnership act, 1932 came to be considered. in paragraph 8 of such judgement it was held as follows : 8.s.45(1) provides that notwithstanding the dissolution of a firm, the partners ..... the sum of rs.4,25,214/- to the plaintiff towards the outstanding due of m/s.parichay advertising to the plaintiff. on the issue of section 45 of the indian partnership act, 1932 he refers to volume 74 company cases page 407 (mayo pharmacy versus aboobacker haji).he relies upon paragraph- 8 thereof. i have considered the contentions of the rival parties ..... not help her in view of section 45 read with section 72 of the indian partnership act, 1932. section 45 of the indian partnership act, 1932 requires a partner of a dissolved partnership firm to issue public notice with regard to 3rd parties transacting with the partnership. a partner of a dissolved partnership firm will continue to remain liable in absence of a public notice to such effect being ..... desolved. section 72 lays down the manner and mode of publication of public notice contemplated under section 45 of the indian partnership act, 1932. there is no evidence on record to show that, a public notice contemplated under section 45 and 72 of the indian partnership act, 1932 was issued by the defendant no.1. therefore, by dint of the provisions of section 45 of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 17 2014 (HC)

Narasus Coffee Company Vs. R.P.Sarathy

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-17-2014

..... side of the plaintiff. therefore, filing such a suit for partition of the property owned by the firm in the year 2006 with the self-contradictory averments is against the indian partnership act and as such, the same has to be construed only as an abuse of process of law and court and accordingly, this court is of the view that the revision ..... the firm and not the joint family properties of the petitioners and the respondents. the relief sought for in the plaint by the first respondent / plaintiff is contrary to the indian partnership act and the alleged cause of action, for seeking partition of the properties belonged to the firm by the retired partner, after getting consideration is self-contradictory and also against the ..... first respondent / plaintiff. the relief sought for in the suit, seeking partition cannot be construed as a remedy available under the common law, since the same is governed by the indian partnership act. if at all, the plaintiff could have filed suit only for dissolution of firm and rendition of accounts or settlement of balance, if any, pursuant to his retirement from the ..... filed the suit, seeking partition. the plaintiff has categorically admitted that the suit properties were the properties of the firm, hence, he cannot file the suit for partition, contrary to indian partnership act.41. the plaintiff had admitted that he was a partner in the firm, along with the second petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 and the suit schedule properties were .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 25 2014 (HC)

Syed NizamuddIn Vs. Shaik Akbar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-25-2014

..... each 'a' and 'b' schedule properties was not maintainable and they will have to file a suit for accounts as per the provisions of indian partnership act and they cannot treat the properties as the joint properties of shaik and syed. he also submitted that admittedly, shaik died in the year 1973 ..... dissolved by the death of one of the partners they will have to take recours.as per the provision of the indian partnership act. they cannot treat those properties as the joint properties of the persons in whose name the properties were purchased. i therefore ..... that they are entitled to 2/14 share each in one half of 'a' and 'b' schedule properties, without seeking relief under provision of partnership act?. 36.it is the contention of the respondents/plaintiffs that when issues were framed by the trial court there was no objection and evidence was ..... judmgment reported in air1966sc1399and air2sc3195 there is no question of transfer of immovable properties when one partner release to another partner his right in the partnership assets and therefore, the document does not require registration and hence, the document is admissible in evidence. the document date 06.01.1972 would ..... gift-tax, hyderabad reported in air2000supreme court 3195 and air1966sc13000in support of his contention that there was no transfer of assets upon dissolution of the partnership firm. he also submitted that the suit was not barred by limitation and even according to the appellants, the properties were purchased in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 2014 (HC)

Mrs. Vibha Mehta Vs. M/S. Hotel Marina and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-31-2014

..... that defendant no.8 was under an obligation to disclose the profit which had accrued to her share till 03.03.2006. it is true that under section 9 of indian partnership act, the partners are bound to be just and faithful to each other, and to render true accounts and fao(os) 15/2013 page 27 full information of all things affecting ..... and how much more sums would be allocated to each of the partners capital accounts. xxx xxx xxx xvi. it is submitted that under section 9 of the indian partnership act, the plaintiff and defendants nos. 2 to 9 were in a fiduciary relationship and this fact was only known to the defendants that the value of the capital account of ..... fraud and vitiated the compromise. it is argued that the reliance of the learned single judge on sections 17 and 19 of the indian contract act, 1872 ( contract act ) was incorrect, as the primary violation of section 9 of the partnership act is standalone, and recourse to external collateral aids in the form of exceptions to section 19 and 17 are not be to be ..... and complete package. thus, no obligation was cast upon defendant no.8 to disclose to the plaintiff the profits which the partnership firm had earned till 03.03.2006, (f) the principle of law contained in section 88 of the indian trusts act, 1882 was not applicable in this case.11. impugning this judgment, and supporting the stand taken in ia no.11371 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 25 2014 (HC)

A.B.P. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Jyoti JaIn and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Sep-25-2014

..... transacting with the partnership. a partner of a dissolved partnership firm will continue to remain liable in absence of a public notice to such ..... . section 72 lays down the manner and mode of publication of public notice contemplated under section 45 of the indian partnership act, 1932. there is no evidence on record to show that, a public notice contemplated under section 45 and 72 of the indian partnership act, 1932 was issued by the defendant no.1. therefore, by dint of the provisions of section 45 of ..... of the defendant no.1 that, the dissolution of the partnership firm on november 1, 2000 with her coming out of the partnership does not help her in view of section 45 read with section 72 of the indian partnership act, 1932. section 45 of the indian partnership act, 1932 requires a partner of a dissolved partnership firm to issue public notice with regard to 3rd parties ..... the indian partnership act, 1932, the defendant no.1 continues to remain liable as a partner of the dissolved partnership firm in absence of the public notice. the last paragraph at page .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 07 2014 (HC)

P and O Nedlloyd Ltd. and ors. Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Nov-07-2014

..... includes a firm and under section 2(23)(i) of the income tax act, 1961, a firm shall have the meaning assigned to it in the indian partnership act, 1932 and shall include a limited liability partnership as defined in the limited liability partnership act, 2008. the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 in particular sections 4 and 69 when applied for the purpose of determining whether the said ..... partnership is a firm within the meaning of the said act, leads this court to conclude the said ..... partnership is a firm within the meaning of the said act. that obviates the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 2014 (HC)

Kamrudin J. Mavany, Since deceased, through L.R.s. and Others Vs. Tajd ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

Decided on : Sep-01-2014

..... provisions of the said decree read with the provisions of portuguese commercial code, 1888, ??society per quotas ? cannot be equated with a partnership, under the indian partnership act, 1932 and that the same is nothing but a company and therefore, the finding of the learned single judge and the learned civil judge ..... senior division to the effect that ??society per quotas ? is a partnership is erroneous, since the above provisions have not been considered. he ..... 1986 afresh by considering the submissions now made in the present review application and to decide whether the said ??society per quotas ? is a partnership firm or a company and whether the provisions of article 1365 of the portuguese civil code are applicable to it or not. 8. in ..... the property 'udego' or 'mestabata' bearing registration no. 9795 was sold to partnership which consisted of the sons of the deceased and there was no dispute about this factual position. in paragraph 3 of the impugned order dated ..... civil judge senior division reveals that both the parties had made submissions by taking it for granted that said ??society per quotas ? is a partnership consisting of sons of the deceased. in paragraph 13 of the order dated 05.03.1992, the learned civil judge senior division has observed that .....

Tag this Judgment!


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