Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-22-2017
..... the hon ble supreme court in addanki narayanappa and anr v. bhaskara krishnappa and ors.reported at air1966sc1300in which sections 14,15, 29, 32, 37, 38 and 48 of the indian partnership act were elaborately discussed. it is submitted that in the said decision it has been clearly stated that whatever may be the character of the property which is brought in by ..... interfere with the surviving partner s right to deal with and dispose of any such assets in the purpose of realisation. mr.mitra has referred to section 37 of the indian partnership act, 1932 and submits that if at the trial it is established that notwithstanding the death of deokinandan jalan, the surviving or continuing partners carry on the business of the firm ..... the partners constituting the firm. a firm under the general law has no distinct legal entity and has no legal existence of its own. section 5 of the indian partnership act recognizes that the relation of partnership arises from contract and not from statute. it arises only from a voluntary agreement and is not created by statute or obtained by birth. there are few ..... compensation and from the bihar government on the accounts being settled and upon discharge of the liabilities. this relief is based on section 46 of the indian partnership act, 1932. it is submitted that section 46 recognised that even a representative of the deceased partners will have the right to have the property of the firm applied in payment .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-03-2017
..... 3 are not personally liable under the above said letter of promise, it could be see that the suit laid by the plaintiff is hit by section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932. accordingly, the substantial questions of law formulated in this second appeal are answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. in conclusion, the second appeal fails and ..... erstwhile partner of the first defendant firm and the same is also indicated in the letter of promise, the suit is maintainable and not barred under section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 and in this connection, he relied on the decision reported in(2004) 13 scc 358 (bhartesh chandra jain vs. shoiab ullah and others). however, as rightly put forth by ..... has given up the first defendant only to set at naught the rigour of the defence of maintainability of the suit raised by the defendants under section 69 of the indian partnerships act, 1932 by misusing the judicial process. 10. the plaintiff's counsel further contended that inasmuch as the plaintiff has sought the recovery of money in lieu of his capital, share ..... first defendant, without effecting consequential amendment of the plaint pleadings. when the defendants have in their written statement specifically pleaded that the suit is hit by section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the plaintiff on giving up his case as against the first defendant, should have given due notice of the same to all the defendants. the plaintiff seems to have .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-22-2017
..... legal entity, but in favour of the partners though it is given in the name of the firm. he refers to section 17-a, 13, 14 and 42 of the indian partnership act and order 30 of cpc. reliance is placed on the judgments of the apex court the case of dulichand laxminarayan vs commr. of income-tax, nagpur air1956sc354 to emphasize the ..... dulichand laxminarayan vs commr. of income-tax, nagpur air1956sc354 the apex court dealing with the nature and legal character of a partnership firm, has held that the general concept of partnership, firmly established in both systems of law (english and indian), still is that a firm is not an entity or person in law but is merely an association of individuals and a ..... in favour of any person named by 8 the licencee, provided such person is otherwise eligible for transfer of licence under the provisions of the karnataka excise act, 1965 or rules made thereunder. for the purposes of this rule 17-b, the partnership 6. firm even though it is not a separate juristic person like a limited company incorporated under the companies ..... act, 1956 or new companies act, 2013, but the same is treated as a person for the purpose of rule 17-b of rules, 1967. a perusal of the proviso .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-27-2017
..... trial court has erred in as much as passing the judgment and decree on the basis of an unregistered partnership deed contrary to the provisions of section 69 of the indian partnership act, which completely bar the filing of the suit as being not maintainable; the indian partnership act is mandatory in character and its effect is to render a suit by a partner in respect of ..... dissolved, as void; that partner of an that section 69 of rfa66/2007 page 4of 10 unregistered partnership firm cannot bring a suit to enforce a right arising out of a contract following under the ambit of section 69 of the indian partnership act; that the partnership itself is not sustainable in the eyes of the law as the respondent is a government employee and ..... she cannot enter into a gainful act while in the government job; that the trial court erred by ignoring the fact that the plaintiff ..... , the same is to be replied by way of document only. the oral contention cannot take the place of a document. this contention is contrary to section 91 of the indian evidence act which reads as follows:-" 91. evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of documents.--when the terms of a contract, or of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-27-2017
..... of the petitioner issued under section 43 of the indian partnership act, 1932; (vii) whether the respondents are liable to pay the ..... the respondent no.2 & 3 have carried on the business of partnership keeping him in the dark and have misappropriated partnership funds. he, treating the partnership as one at will, issued a notice on 22nd november, 2016 under section 43 of the indian partnership act, dissolving the partnership. the partnership agreements between the parties contain an arbitration clause, clause-36 which is ..... the respondents have done an illegality allegedly expelling the petitioner from the partnership firm; (v) whether the alleged expulsion of the petitioner from the firm is violative to clause 27 of the deed of partnership and section 33 of the indian partnership act, 1932; (vi) whether the partnership firm has been dissolved on delivery of notice dated 22.11.2016 ..... follows: 36. arbitration clause:- that in case of dispute arising between the partners regarding the partnership business as the same shall be referred to the arbitration as stipulated .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-05-2017
..... does not convert the relationship between the parties as anything other than the relationship between the partners.the question is whether a single venture agreement can be a partnership. section 8 of the indian partnership act deals with such a situation. section 8 makes it clear that a person may become a partner with any person in particular adventure or undertaking. therefore, the term ..... is clear that the said agreement demonstrates the relationship between the persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business. if the definition of the partnership as given under section 4 of the indian partnership act is analysed, it will be clear that it has three components: a) agreement must be entered into by all persons; b) agreement must be to ..... ltd.versus cityscape developers pvt.ltd., a.p.no.237 of 1998. mr.mitra has relied upon the following passages from the said decision in support of his submission:- partnership has been defined under section 4 of the indian partnership act as the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them ..... business, which has been used in section 4 of the said indian partnership act, may consist of even a single commercial adventure on which the parties may embark. such instances of a particular partnership may take various forms including the development of a parcel of land. (see the judgment of the division bench of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-15-2017
..... singh & s.r.dodawad, advs.) in w.p.nos.103797 & 103977/2016: between:1. mangalore ganesh beedi work, rep. by gopinath shenoy, a registered partnership firm, duly registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 and having its head office at vinoba road, mysore-570005. and having its depot/trading centre at m/s shree jagannath traders, "srinidhi" building, 2nd ..... asg along with sri aditya singh & s.r.dodawad, advs.) in w.p.no.103520/2016: between: fasttrack packers pvt. ltd., a company incorporated under the provisions of the indian companies act, having its place of business at survey no.165, cmc no.126, 180, 15-110, old p.b. road near bus stand, nipani, taluka chikodi-591237, district belagavi, ..... s.badawadagi, adv. for impleading applicant in i.a.2/16) in w.p.101879/2016: between: ghodawat foods international pvt. ltd., a company incorporated under the provisions of the indian companies act, and having its registered office at plot no.436 & 437, chipri-416 101, kolhapur, maharashtra and having its factory at1051a & b, kotagondahunshi village, post adargunchi, taluka hubli, ..... asg, along with sri aditya singh & s.r.dodawad, advs.) in w.p.no.100996/2016: between: ghodawat industries (i) pvt. ltd., a company incorporated under the provisions of the indian companies act and having its registered office at plot no.438, chipri-416 101, kholapur, maharashtra, and having its factory at1051a & b, kotagondahunshi village, post: adargunchi, tq: hubballi, dist: dharwad, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-17-2017
..... by the court.6. there is no merit in this appeal. the appellant s prayer for possession is clearly barred by section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932. there is no infirmity in the finding of trial court that ex.pwdoes not bear the signature of the respondent. the finding of the ..... for possession. it is submitted that the suit for mandatory and permanent injunction was not hit by section 69 of the rfa4332017 page 2 of 3 indian partnership act, 1932 and, therefore, the subsequent amendment of the suit would not bar the prayer of possession. it is further submitted that the defendant s ..... ld. trial court held the suit to be barred by section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 as the alleged partnership firm was unregistered. the ld. trial court examined the appellant s case on merits and held that the alleged partnership deed does not bear the signatures of the respondent. the ld. trial court further ..... claims to have jointly carried out the partnership from 2003 to 06th february, 2009 when the respondent and her husband rfa4332017 page 1 of 3 broke open the lock on the appellant s ..... the letter dated 27th march, 2003 issued by municipal corporation of delhi in favour of the respondent. the appellant claims to have entered into a partnership with the respondent on 05th may, 2003 according to which each party would be entitled to 50% share in the profits and losses. the appellant .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-30-2017
..... these facets need detailed enquiry and evidence. it is unregistered till this date in view of the disputes between the parties. the submission revolving around section 69 (2) of the indian partnership act cannot be the foundation to reject the plaint, in the present stage. (10) i have considered the respective contentions of the parties. (11) it is an undisputed fact that sanjay ..... bricks. production of fly ash bricks was contemplated under the contract and the claim arises out of the contract. therefore, the suit is barred under sec. 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 and the submissions including the cases cited by the plaintiff-respondent cannot be accepted. the plea of statutory right taken by the plaintiff is not applicable in view of ..... defendant. the plaintiffs have instituted the suit as partners of the said firm. however, the said firm is unregistered. hence, the suit is barred under sec. 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 (in short ipa ) which bars a suit on behalf of a firm against any third party to enforce a contractual right unless the firm is registered and the persons ..... products of the defendant only inasmuch as the application was also in respect of dets , an abbreviation for detergents. . (14) the plaintiffs in the name of the said partnership firm continued to act as redistribution stockist of the defendant in respect of detergent products. (45j.in the premises aforesaid, by reason of the wrongful termination of the contract and/or wrongful and .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-07-2017
..... it is a legally enforceable debt or liability. the disability of an unregistered firm under section 69(2) of the crl.m.c. 3474/2016 page 7 of 10 9. indian partnership act to file a suit to enforce a right arising out of a contract does not make such debt or liability a not legally enforceable debt or liability. however, in amit ..... 2008 cri lj498division bench of karnataka high court held: 9. now coming to the contention of the respondents that in view of the provisions of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act. the amount under the transaction was not legally enforceable debt, reliance has been placed by the respondents learned advocate on a division bench decision of andhra pradesh high court in ..... /2016 page 2 of 10 bench of kerala high court & single benches of karnataka high court and punjab & haryana high court is that irrespective of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, a complaint under section 138 ni act is maintainable whereas the view taken by the division bench of andhra pradesh high court is that the bar under section 69(2) of the ..... indian partnership act is also applicable to a complaint under section 138 of the ni act.5. in the decision reported as air1975ker 144 kerala arecanut stores v. ramkishore and sons it was held: 10. reference has been made to these .....Tag this Judgment!