Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.04 seconds)
Documents citing Ketineni Chandrasekhar Rao--- vs Boppana Seshagiri Rao And Others on 25 November, 2016

Rukmini Devi vs M/S Aryan Flavors (Registered ... on 4 September, 2021

If under the terms of the reference all disputes and difference arising between the parties have been referred to Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.69 of 2019 dt.04-09-2021 6/8 arbitration, the arbitrator will, in general, be able to deal with all matters, including dissolution. There is no principle of law or any provision which bars an arbitrator to examine such a question. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a passage of Pollock & Mulla, quoted earlier, that passage is only confined to the inherent powers of the court as to whether dissolution of partnership is just and equitable, but we have demonstrated in the course of our order that it is permissible for the court to refer to arbitration a dispute in relation to dissolution as well on grounds such as destruction of mutual trust and confidence between the partners which is the foundation therefor." [See also Banarasi Das v. Kanshi Ram, AIR 1963 SC 1165; Joginder Pal v. Pushpinder Kumar, 2016 SCC Online P&H Online P & H 520; Ketineni Chandrasekhar Rao v. Boppana Sesagiri Rao, AIR 2017 Hyd 30; Hemendra Babulal Shah H.U.F. v. Babulal Shivlal Shah, 2006 (3) Guj LR 2582]
Patna High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S Karol - Full Document

Smt.Amrit Kaur(Now Deceased) Through ... vs Sardar Hardev Singh on 27 January, 2025

"8. The law on the subject is also very clear. The judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel reported in Ketineni Chandrasekhar Rao case (1 supra) is applicable to the facts. It is clearly mentioned that once the property is thrown into the partnership stock it becomes the property of the firm and the partner is only entitled to a share of the profits accruing to the partnership firm or upon dissolution of share in the money representing the value of the property. It is clearly held that the plaintiff being a partner cannot claim a partition or demand his share of the property.
Delhi District Court Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills ... vs Grandhi Naveen Babu on 12 May, 2023

8) The law on the subject is also very clear. The judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel reported in Ketineni Chandrasekhar Rao case (1 supra) is applicable to the facts. It is clearly mentioned that once the property is thrown into the partnership stock it becomes the property of the firm and the partner is only entitled to a share of the profits accruing to the partnership firm or upon dissolution of share in the money representing the value of the property. It is clearly held that the plaintiff being a partner cannot claim a partition or demand his share of the property.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1