Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 40 (0.59 seconds)The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Section 15 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Addanki Narayanappa & Anr vs Bhaskara Krishtappa And 13 Ors on 21 January, 1966
In this context, reliance can also be placed upon a
judgment of this Court in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara
Krishnappa, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 6 in which this Court has held
that irrespective of the character of the property, when it is brought
in by the partner when the partnership is formed, it becomes a
property of the partnership firm, by virtue of Section 14 of
Partnership Act. This Court held as follows:
"7. It seems to us that looking to the scheme of the Indian Act no
other view can reasonably be taken. The whole concept of
partnership is to embark upon a joint venture and for that purpose
to bring in as capital money or even property including immovable
property. Once that is done whatever is brought in would cease to
be the trading asset of the person who brought it in. It would be
the trading asset of the partnership in which all the partners would
have interest in proportion to their share in the joint venture of the
business of partnership. The person who brought it in would,
therefore, not be able to claim or exercise any exclusive right over
RC ARC No.61/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS ROHIT GULATI Pg 33 of 61
Digitally
signed by
DIVYA DIVYA
Date:
Shiv Sarup Gupta vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta on 30 July, 1999
70.It is trite that tenant cannot dictate the landlord as to what is adequate
and landlord is the best judge of his requirements. It is a settled law that
mere availability of other alternate accommodation is itself not the
decisive factor for denial of eviction proceedings by the landlord, more
so, since there are various factors like the size, location, access, purpose,
viability, safety concerns, football, and/or like, amongst others which
have/ are to be taken into consideration while dealing with the aspect of
availability of alternate suitable accommodation. Reliance is placed
upon case titled as Shiv Sarup Gupta v Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta [(1999)
6 SCC 222].