Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 2015 Page 1 of about 355 results (0.098 seconds)

Mar 13 2015 (HC)

M/s Hotel Satkar and Another Vs. Krishnanath Nanu Chavdikar and Anothe ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

Decided on : Mar-13-2015

..... hand, shri j. godinho, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has pointed out that the suit is barred in terms of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, as admittedly the partnership was an unregistered partnership firm. learned counsel further pointed out that the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, that the appellants were enforcing a statutory right is ..... the learned addl. district judge, by judgment and decree dated 06.12.2004,had come to the conclusion that the suit is barred under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act and found that the findings of the learned judge that the respondents were tenants of the premises cannot be faulted and, consequently, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants. 10 ..... pointed out that on going through the ratio laid down therein, the findings of the courts below that the suit is barred in terms of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, are totally erroneous. learned senior advocate as such submits that the first substantial question of law be answered in favour of the appellants. learned senior advocate has further pointed ..... that the courts below have erroneously dismissed the suit filed by the appellants on the ground that the suit is barred under the provisions of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932, without noting that the suit filed by the appellants was to enforce the statutory obligations to vacate the disputed premises as the occupation of the respondents was that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 29 2015 (HC)

Gulmali Amrullah Babul and Others Vs. Shabbir Salebhai Mahimwala and O ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-29-2015

..... of them who would be highest bidder to conduct such business on payment of royalty. till such time, the accounts were drawn up under section 48 of the indian partnership act, running business of the partnership firm was required to be conducted by the partners who would offer highest amount of royalty for the benefit of all partners. the said judgment of supreme court ..... distributed amongst the partners in their ratio of the profit and loss mentioned in the partnership deed. till such exercise is completed by the learned arbitrator under section 48 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the learned arbitrator has ample power under section 17 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 to pass an order of interim measures of protection in respect of such subject ..... is concerned, a perusal of the record prima facie indicates that after execution of the said mou, the parties have entered into a partnership deed and have acted upon the said mou dated 12th february, 2002 as well as partnership deed. in my view there is thus no substance of any nature whatsoever in the submission of the respondents that the said mou ..... to renovate the said suit premises which stood damaged in fire on 21st may 2001 and to restart the partnership business. it is the case of the claimant that the said mou was wrongfully disputed by the respondents though the same was acted upon. 5. on 15th february 2002, a deed of retirement was executed between the respondents as continuing partners and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 28 2015 (HC)

Horace Kevin Gonsalves and Another Vs. Prabha Ganpat Borkar and Others

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-28-2015

..... of attorney in favour of a third party to represent them and take an action on behalf of the firm under sections 18 and 19 of the indian partnership act, 1932. in support of this submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments:- 1) j.j.l.b. engineers and contractors through its ..... which he could have filed vakalatnama and consent terms as done fraudulently in collusion with the respondent no.1. in my view under the provisions of partnership act, even a partner could not have executed such power of attorney in favour of the third party when other partners had not retired and were ..... case of j.j.l.b. engineers and contractors through its partner balabeersingh (supra) which reads thus:- ??8. section 19(2)(a) of the partnership act clearly provides that in the absence of any usage or custom of trade to the contrary the implied authority of the partner does not empower him to ..... inadmissible in evidence. 30. the learned counsel placed reliance on sections 18, 19(2(c), 19(2)(g), 20, 21 and 22 of the partnership act, 1932 and would submit that even if peter drego had executed any such power of attorney in favour of mr.samsuddin, he being one of the partner ..... drego in his personal capacity. it is submitted that even the alleged power of attorney was executed contrary to the provisions of the partnership act, 1932 and could not be acted upon. 33. the learned counsel invited my attention to the alleged power of attorney alleged to have been executed in the year 1996 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 17 2015 (HC)

M/s. C.M. Makhija Vs. The Chairman cum Managing Director, South Easter ...

Court : Chhattisgarh

Decided on : Jul-17-2015

..... apex court held that the arbitral proceedings would not be maintainable at the instance of an unregistered firm having regard to the mandatory provisions contained in section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932. 13. as the facts narrated earlier would indicate in the instant case, despite the objection raised there is no document has been placed on record that on the date ..... the same. it is contended that therefore it will lead to draw an inference that the firm is unregistered one. so by virtue of application of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the petition is not maintainable. he placed his reliance on jagdish chandra gupta v. kajaria traders (india) ltd., air 1964 sc 1882 and would submit that section 69(3 ..... non-applicants/s.e.c.l. filed its objection and predominantly opposition was made that the applicant is not a registered partnership firm having registration number from the register of firms and societies whereby by virtue of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, prohibits filing of a proceeding by an unregistered firm. it is contended that since the firm which invoked the ..... of filing the firm was a registered partnership. consequently, as the law laid down by their lordship, as has been discussed above, the bar of section 69(3) of the indian partnership act, 1932 would come into play whereby enforcement of right of arbitration proceeding would be blocked as the application itself .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 20 2015 (HC)

Prabhakar Reddy Vs. H.R. Ravichandra and Others

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jul-20-2015

..... by the eighth respondent firm against the petitioner in the matter of illegal sale of sites. 15. he submits that under section 19 of the indian partnership act, 1932, it is necessary that all the partners agree to refer the dispute to the arbitration. if one partner agrees to refer the matter to ..... , having not been giving any share in the profits, have been acting whimsically and have thereby violated the terms and conditions of the partnership deed, dated 1.6.2006, of the final reconstitution deed of partnership and also of the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932. 2. the petitioner caused the issuance of two legal notices ..... out of the joint development agreement, dated 25.2.2008 (annexure-a). the said agreement is entered into between m/s. classic enterprises, the partnership firm in question and the respondent nos. 6 and 7. the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are the partners of the said firm and the ..... of the arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents in respect of the claims arising out of the reconstitution deed of partnership, dated 23.2.2008 (annexure-a). the petitioner claims to be the founder partner of the sixth respondent firm and that the respondent nos ..... as one of the respondents. admittedly, the reconstitution deed is in respect of the said partnership firm. no doubt, the firm has its own legal existence, but it is not a human entity. it has to act through the human limbs. alongside its partners and the l.r.s of the deceased .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 20 2015 (HC)

Rajiv Kumar Gupta Vs. Susham Singla and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-20-2015

..... was given to one rajiv kumar gupta for entering into the agreement to sell. in essence, there is no separate authorisation in writing. however, section 14 of the indian partnership act, 1932 (for short "1932 act") deals with the property of the firm. the same is reproduced herein under:- "14. the property of the firm.-subject to contract between the partners, the property of ..... . avnish mittal that sunhena gupta and raghav gupta had given the implied and express consent to rajiv kumar gupta to appear and conduct the proceedings or to do any other act on behalf of the partnership before the arbitrator and, therefore, they are estopped to raise the objections vis-a-vis the jurisdiction of the arbitrator as per section 16 of the ..... sign all the documents, whereas there is "no authorisation" strictly in consonance with clause 9 of the partnership deed, thus, the provisions of section 24 of the act and the judgments cited in this regard are not applicable. in my view, clause 9 of the partnership deed is in consonance with the embargo contained in clause (g) of sub-section (2) of section ..... gupta to sell 50% and 30% share of raghav gupta and sunhena gupta. clause 9 of the partnership deed is in consonance with sub-clause (g) of sub-section 2 of section 19 of 1932 act, though sub-section (1) of section 19 deals with certain acts as provided under section 22, but the fact remains that sub-section (2) does not deal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 2015 (HC)

Baldev Singh and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Aayakar Bhawan, L ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-30-2015

..... evidence on record. counsel for the appellant further submits that section 23 of the income tax act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') defines a firm as having the same meaning as assigned under the indian partnership act, 1932. the revenue was required in the discharge of its onus, to prove the existence ..... of a partnership of which baldev singh was a partner. a perusal of the record reveals that the revenue has not been able to produce any partnership deed or document ..... holding mr. baldev singh as partner of the appellant firm without appreciating the provisions of law as laid down even under the provisions of the partnership act, and its binding nature as so held by hon'ble kerala high court in the case of m. rajgopal v. k.s. imamali, ..... the record of the auction of liquor vends conducted by the excise and taxation department, haryana, be requisitioned, as neither party has produced the partnership deed. baldev singh did not file any further appeal. 10. the assessing officer requisitioned the relevant record from the excise and taxation department, ..... a partner cannot apportion liability to another without reference to any document and mere signatures on certain documents would not raise inference of a partnership. counsel for the appellant also submits that the evidence on record, the search conducted on the premises of pritam singh, his surrender of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 2015 (HC)

Ashok Dattatraya Kulkarni and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-20-2015

..... maharashtra cooperative societies act, 1960, but by misrepresentation and fraud. the original defendant no. 6 claims to be the chief ..... mhada' for short) and which is an authority constituted under the maharashtra housing and area development act, 1976. the original defendant no. 3 is the collector of mumbai suburban district. the original defendant no. 4 is a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932. the original defendant no. 5 is a society allegedly formed and registered under the ..... as managing partner of defendant no. 4. (e) i say that my late father, mr. k. l. walawalkar had established the partnership firm, defendant no. 4, in 1978 or thereabouts. i say the registered office of the partnership firm, defendant no. 4, since 1978 or thereabouts till date (2013) had been and continues to be at 11a, suyash, near ..... , cooperative societies, k-west ward, the plaintiff no. 1 filed application no. 22 of 2012 before the divisional joint registrar, cooperative societies under section 21a of the said act for deregistration of defendant no. 5 and challenged the grant of impugned registration certificate dated 28th february, 2012 issued by the deputy registrar, cooperative societies, k-west ward. p .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 12 2015 (HC)

Kunda Madhukar Shetye and Others Vs. Shaila Subrao Shetye and Others

Court : Mumbai Goa

Decided on : Mar-12-2015

..... nature or change the contractual relationship without the consent of the plaintiff, since it would be in violation of section 12(c) of the indian partnership act. it was contended that decision to sever the contractual relationship with defendant nos.6, 7 and 8 would be a change in the ..... need to be considered. 33. the first ground is that there is no power of expulsion. the partnership deed is placed on record. i have perused the partnership deed. section 33 of the indian partnership act deals with expulsion of a partner. section 33 reads as under: 33. expulsion of a partner (1 ..... argument of the plaintiff is to be accepted then that would mean the present suit itself will be hit by bar of section 69 of partnership act. both the submissions prima facie have merit and therefore the argument regarding effect of non-registration cannot be considered. 38. as regard the ..... applicability of section 12(c) of the partnership act is concerned it was debated whether change of contractors would amount to change in nature of business. firstly, this ground would have to be ..... act. it was also contended that the report of the indian bureau of mines which was referred to by the majority was being contested before the appropriate authority and the said report is without any substance. it was therefore submitted that the plaintiff is right in contending that she is never expelled from the partnership .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 2015 (HC)

Saroj Arora and Ors Vs. Mohinder Pal and Ors

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-27-2015

..... the petitioners of their legitimate legal rights.33. it appears that the trial court fell into an error by not appreciating the law laid down under section 37 of the indian partnership act, 1932, wherein it has been categorically stated that where any member of a firm dies then the surviving or continuing partners of the business carry on the business of the ..... was illegally retained by the respondents.8. it is the case of the plaintiff that on the death of narinder pal the partnership deed dated 04.12.2001 stood dissolved in view of the provisions of s. 42 on the indian partnership act, 1932 and the plaintiff being the legal heirs of late narinder pal became entitled to rendition of account and accommodation with ..... with the partnership firm on the death of late narinder pal. continuation of the partnership entitles the respondents to use the partnership assets for the partnership business and hence the arguments of the petitioners that ..... the firm and not induction as a partner in the partnership firm or a right to participate in the business of the firm.24. the learned counsel for the respondent has contested that the principle laid down in section 43 of the partnership act is subject to a contract to the contrary. the partnership deed dated 09.08.2007 entitles the respondents to continue .....

Tag this Judgment!


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