Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 146 (4.21 seconds)

Ashoka Group vs Shri Hariram Buddhraja on 23 July, 2024

With respect, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the principles enunciated in Haldiram Bhujiawala [Haldiram Bhujiawala v. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar, (2000) 3 SCC 250] . Having regard to the purpose Section 69(2) seeks to achieve and the interest sought to be protected, the bar must apply to a suit for enforcement of right arising from a contract entered into by the unregistered firm with a third party in the course of business dealings with such third party. If the right sought to be enforced does not arise from a contract to which the unregistered firm is a party, or is not entered into in connection with the business of the unregistered firm with a third party, the bar of Section 69(2) will not apply."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - A K Paliwal - Full Document

Haldiram Bhujiawala & Anr. vs Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar & Ors. on 19 October, 2015

In C.M. (M) No.532/2013 titled Haldiram Bhujiawala & Anr. Vs. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar & Ors., the order dated 21.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge on an application of the appellant/defendant seeking review of the order dated 27.09.2012 passed on I.A. No.1675/2012 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC in TM No.02/2011 [earlier C.S. (OS) No.635/1992] is under challenge.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - V K Shali - Full Document

Deen Mohammad vs Paradise Garh Nirman Shahkari Samiti on 5 March, 2026

With respect, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the principles enunciated in Haldiram Bhujiawala [Haldiram Bhujiawala v. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar, (2000) 3 SCC 250] . Having regard to the purpose Section 69(2) seeks to achieve and the interest sought to be protected, the bar must apply to a suit for enforcement of right arising from a contract entered into by the unregistered firm with a third party in the course of business dealings with such third party. If the right sought to be enforced does not arise from a contract to which the unregistered firm is a party, or is not entered into in connection with the business of the unregistered firm with a third party, the bar of Section 69(2) will not apply."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Blueberry Books & Ors vs Bharti Goyal & Anr on 14 January, 2019

In my opinion, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Haldiram Bhujiawala & Anr. vs. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar & Anr.(supra) would be squarely applicable. Merely because some additional or ancillary issues are also arising in the course of adjudication of the controversy in the plaint, would not be sufficient to hold that the suit is barred under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - J Nath - Full Document

Vinayak Plywoods vs Ads And Associates on 23 August, 2023

The principles vividly exposited in the case of Haldiram Bhujiawala (supra) that to attract the bar of Section 69 (2) of the Act of 1932, the contract in question must be the one entered into by the firm with the third party defendant and must also be the one entered into by the plaintiff firm in the course of its business dealings; and that Section 69 (2) of the Act of 1932 is not a bar to a suit filed by an unregistered firm, if the same is for enforcement of a statutory right or a common law right.
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ieee Mumbai Section Welfare ... vs Global Ieee Institute For Engineers on 2 July, 2025

(k) He contends that the contention of the plaintiff that he is pursuing contractual right and not a statutory right is only an absurd and illogical contention. Relying on the judgment in the case of Haldiram Bhujiawala and another Vs. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar and another19 it is argued that the suit is to be treated as one based on statutory right and not a suit arising out of the contract.
Karnataka High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P. C. Chandra Financial Services ... vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 21 August, 2025

19. The partnership deed dated August, 22, 1974 is germane in the context, since M/s Khanna & Sons was formed by the said deed. Clause 4 of the same stipulates that the partnership shall continue till the lifetime of the 1 Shiv Developers vs. Aksharay Developers and Others reported at (2022) 13 SCC 772 2 Haldiram Bhujiawala and Another vs. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar and Another reported at (2000) 3 SCC 250 8 2025:CHC-AS:1597-DB partners unless previously determined by mutual consent and agreement between them.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S Bhattacharyya - Full Document

Ms Rathore Trading Co vs Smt Harminder Kaur on 23 April, 2010

In the present case also, the plaintiff is enforcing its statutory right under the Act, 1961, wherein it is provided under Section 12 that notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or usages a tenant cannot be evicted from a premises unless the plaintiff succeeds in proving one or the other ground mentioned in clauses (a) to (p) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, 1961. The right to evict a tenant under the Act, 1961 is, thus, a statutory right, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. vs. Ganesh Property (supra) followed in Haldiram Bhujiawala and another vs. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar and another (supra) and followed and reiterated in Purushottam and another vs. Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works and others, 2007 JT Vol.4 564, this Court holds that the present suit preferred by the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant is not barred under Section 69(2) of the Act, 1932 even though the plaintiff is a partner of an unregistered partnership firm and more so because in the present case the accommodation is neither owned by the partnership firm nor it is the landlord nor the firm has filed the suit for eviction.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next