Advanced Search Results
Rajanikanta Padhi Vs. B. Kameswar Subudhi (Dead) After Him His L.Rs. a ...
Orissa
Jan-07-2002
CommercialBanking
Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - Sections 69(2); Orissa Money Lenders Act, 1939
2002(I)OLR646
dismissed on merit with cost all throughout. Advocate's fee be assessed at contested scale. Civil - Recovery - Sections 4 and 69 of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - Plaintiff was registered money lender - Defendant having cloth … without including the co-owner, i.e. his brother and the suit is hit by Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.8. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff/respondent repelled the aforesaid contention and defended correctness of the impugned judgment.9. Before discussing
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskMr. Amit Desai and anr. Vs. Shine Enterprises and State
Andhra Pradesh
Feb-09-2000
Criminal
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (Cr.P.C.) - Sections 482; Negotiable Instruments Act - Sections 138 and 142; Partnership Act, 1932 - Sections 69 and 69(2); Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920; Presidency - towns Insolvency Act, 1909; Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 - Sections 19; Presidency Small Cause Courts (Amendment) Act, 1887
2000(1)ALD(Cri)587; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)384; [2001]107CompCas22(AP); 2000CriLJ2386
firm - Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1938, Sections 69 and 69 (2) of Partnership Act, 1932, Provincial Insolvency Act,1920, Presidency towns Insolvency Act, 1909, Section 19 of … not maintainable because of the fact that the complainant firm is not registered under section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932. Section 69 of the Partnership Act reads as under:'69.EFFECT OF NON-REGISTRATION:- (1) No suit to enforce a right
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskBombay Cotton Export Import Co. Vs. Bharat Suryodaya Mill Co. Ltd.
Mumbai
Feb-17-1958
Civil
Partnership Act, 1932 - Sections 57, 58, 59, 69 and 69(2); Indian Independence Act, 1947 - Sections 2 and 9; Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950 - Sections 28; Application of Laws Act; Government of India Act, 1935 - Sections 18(3); General Clauses Act, 1897
AIR1959Bom307; (1958)60BOMLR894; ILR1958Bom1351
at the date when the suit was instituted, the suit was barred by Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. 2. The plaintiffs carried on business in cotton in Karachi prior to the partition of India, The plaintiffs … not being a registered firm at the date when the suit was instituted, the suit was barred by Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. 2. The plaintiffs carried on business in cotton in Karachi prior
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask18-section briefs on any result in this list
Surjansingh S/O Mohansingh Vs. Smt. Jasbir Kaur Wd/O Sardar Chanansing ...
Mumbai
Nov-27-2007
Civil
Partnership Act, 1932 - Sections 69 and 69(2); Limitation Act; Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1962; Maharashtra Partnership Act, 1932 - Sections 69(2A); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 2, Rules 1 and 2 - Order 23, Rule 1 and 1(4) - Order 41, Rules 22 and 33
2008(2)ALLMR454; 2008(2)BomCR207; 2008(2)MhLj763
on the ground of limitation and also on the ground of bar under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Both these issues were answered by the trial Court in favour of appellant and the appellate Court has … of any evidence recorded by the Court IX. Whether the defendants were estopped from taking the plea under Section 69 of the Partnership Act, in view of their pleadings X. Whether the question of limitation which was … of memo of Second Appeal as substantial questions of law on 14.10.2002. 2. I have heard Shri Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for the appellant original plaintiff
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskVilas Shriram Mahalle and anr. Vs. Rajdhaniprasad Rahinprasad Tiwari a ...
Mumbai
Dec-01-2004
CivilContract
Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 23, Rule 1(3); Partnership Act, 1932 - Sections 69 and 69(2)
2005(3)ALLMR478; 2005(4)BomCR869; 2005(1)MhLj596
firm.3. Admittedly, when the suit was filed the firm was not registered under Section 59 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The application for registration was made on 31st August, 1997. The … share of profits in the firm.3. Admittedly, when the suit was filed the firm was not registered under Section 59 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The application for registration … a dismissal of the suit in view of the provisions of Section 69 of the Act as amended by the Indian Partnership (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, … Civil Revision Application has been filed against the order dated 8th September, 2000, passed by the Joint Civil Judge, (Jr. Dn.), Kamptee, rejecting the applicant/plaintiffs'
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskYessay Foodoils (Represented by Its Partners: Mohammed Iqbal S/O Late ...
Karnataka
Oct-24-2008
Tenancy
Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - Sections 69(2); Transfer of Property Act - Sections 108 and 111; Rent Act; Trade Marks Act
2008(5)KCCR3232; AIR2009Kant103; ILR2009KAR724; 2009(9)KarLJ156; 2009(3)AIRKarR352;
can be said to be not maintainable in view of the bar under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is the question that calls for an answer in this second appeal filed by the plaintiffs in the … for possession and mesne profits can be said to be not maintainable in view of the bar under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is the question that calls for an answer in this second
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskPurushottam and anr. Vs. Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works and ors.
Supreme Court of India
Nov-07-2006
Civil
Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - Sections 69 and 69(2); Arbitration Act - Sections 20; Trade Marks Act; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 7, Rule 11
2007(1)AWC878(SC); 2006(2)CTLJ269(SC); JT2007(4)SC564; (2007)1MLJ623(SC); 2006(12)SCALE232; 2006AIRSCW5898
recommendations made by the Special Committee in its report which was considered by the legislature while enacting the Partnership Act, 1932. The Committee recommended that registration of firms be made optional as it considered making registration compulsory too drastic … and dismissed the suit holding that in view of the provisions of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), … 10, 1992 allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit holding that in view of the provisions of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the suit was not maintainable, the plaintiff
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskPochareddy Radhakrishna Reddy Vs. Gopalakrishna Rice Mill
Andhra Pradesh
Jan-24-2007
ContractProperty
Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - Sections 56, 69, 69(1) and 69(2); Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1903; Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920; Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 - Sections 19; Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 100
2007(5)ALD162
as hereunder:Whether the suit is maintainable in view of the bar imposed by Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932? 3. The unsuccessful defendant in both the Courts below preferred the present second appeal. The respondent herein - … Counsel representing the appellant is as hereunder:Whether the suit is maintainable in view of the bar imposed by Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932? 3. The unsuccessful defendant in both the Courts below preferred the
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskShreeram Finance Corporation Vs. YasIn Khan and ors.
Supreme Court of India
Jul-21-1989
Commercial
Partnership Act, 1932 - Sections 69 and 69(2); Constitution of India - Article 136
AIR1989SC1769; JT1989(3)SC146; 1989MPLJ665(SC); 1989(2)SCALE51; (1989)3SCC476; [1989]3SCR484; 1989(2)LC505(SC)
1972, the judgment having been delivered on Dec. 12, 1972.2. The appellants are a firm registered under the Partnership Act, 1932 and inter alia carry on the business of hire-purchased automobile vehicles. The appellants were the owners of a … ground that it was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932. The appellants preferred an appeal against … dismissed the suit on the ground that it was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932. The appellants preferred an appeal against this decision to the Bombay High Court
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskKishore Kumar B. Zaveri and Another Vs. Navinchandra H. Somaiya and Ot ...
Mumbai
Nov-17-1997
Tenancy
Partnership Act, 1932 - Sections 69(2), (2-A); Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Housr Rates Control Act, 1947 - Sections 28
AIR1998Bom153; 1998(1)ALLMR579; 1998(4)BomCR75; (1998)2BOMLR82
of Motion No. 2112 of 1995 is adjourned to 15th December, 1997.12. Order accordingly. Partnership Act, 1932 - Sections 69, 69(2-A) - Registration - Bombay Rent Act - Section 28 - Bar of - Partnership firm dissolved - … clear that the suit is barred in view of a the provisions of section 69(2-A) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.4. Mr. Gala has submitted that the suit is liable to be dismissed on account of the operation of
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskAI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »