Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.36 seconds)The Right to Information Act, 2005
Section 15 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 9 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Rajendra Prasad Arora Son Of Late Roshan ... vs State Of U.P. And Ratan Lal Arora Son Of ... on 1 March, 2007
The learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the decision of this
Court in Roshan Lal Arora v. State 2007 (4) JCC 2883, where this Court
observed that every partner of a firm has a fiduciary obligation to render true and
faithful accounts of the other partners. There is no quarrel with the proposition of
law enunciated in this case. But, in the case before this Court, there was no linkage
between the accounts of the firm and the account which the plaintiff agreed to
accept from defendant No. 8 and in any case, nothing prevented defendant No. 8
from insisting upon the accounts of the firm till 03.03.2006 being disclosed to her
before she entered into a settlement with defendant No. 8.
Prem Ballabh Khulbe vs Mathura Datt Bhatt on 16 December, 1966
The learned counsel for the
defendant No. 8, on the other hand, has relied upon the decision of Supreme Court
in Prem Ballabh Khulbe v. Mathura Datt Bhatt AIR 1967, Supreme Court 1342
(V 54 C 280), where the Court approved the statement of law stated in Halsbury's
Laws of England 3rd Edition, Vol. 38, art. 1363, p. 820 to the effect that
partnership itself does not create a fiduciary relation between the partners or make
one of them a trustee for the other or for his representatives though such relations
may arise on the death of one of them or be created by other special circumstances.
The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff does not help the
plaintiff for the simple reason that this is not the case of the plaintiff that defendant
No. 8 had refused to disclose the accounts of the firm to her or had rendered false
accounts and in any case, there was no relationship between the profits earned by
the firm and the account which the plaintiff agreed to accept from defendant No. 8.