Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)Section 69 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
The Indian Partnership Act, 1932
Seth Loonkaran Sethiya And Ors. vs Mr. Ivan E. John And Ors. on 20 October, 1976
14. He also relied on the judgment in the case of
LOONKARAM SETHIA ETC VS. MR. IVAN E. JOHN AND
OTHERS4, wherein it was held that the Section 69 is
mandatory in character and its effect is to render a suit by
a plaintiff in respect of right vested in him or acquired by
him under a contract, which he entered into as a partner
of an unregistered firm, whether existing or dissolved,
void. In other words, a partner of an erstwhile
unregistered partnership firm cannot bring a suit to
enforce a right arising out of a contract falling within the
ambit of Section 69 of the Act, 1932.
Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Wool ... vs G. Mahanandi And Company Wool Merchants ... on 13 March, 2003
NC: 2024:KHC:7598
RFA No. 1276 of 2008
or on behalf of the firm are that the firm is registered one
and that the persons suing are or have been shown in the
register of firms as partners. He also relied on the
judgment in the case of THE ANDHRA PRADESH CO-
OPERATIVE WOOL SPINNING MILLS LIMITED AND
ANOTHER VS. G.MAHANANDI AND COMPANY WOOL
MERCHANTS AND OTHERS6, wherein it was held that
plea that the plaintiff firm is not a registered firm and
hence, the suit is not maintainable is a jurisdictional fact
and not a question of fact. Therefore, it need not have
been pleaded in the written statement by the defendant to
take such defence at hearing.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Bloom Dekor Limited vs Subhash Himatlal Desai on 9 September, 1994
Lastly, he relied on the
decision in the case of BLOOM DEKOR LIMITED VS.
SUBHASH HIMATLAL DESAI AND OTHERS7, which is
relating to a company but not the partnership firm.
Therefore, the said decision cannot be made applicable to
the case on hand in anyway.
Section 69 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Raghunath Sahu And Anr. vs Trinath Das And Ors. on 7 August, 1984
The essential ingredients of the
partnership firm are as laid down in the case of
RAGHUNATH SAHU (Supra). The three elements of the
requirements of a partnership firm should have been
elicited in the cross-examination to establish that it was a
unregistered partnership firm. However, PW.1 in the cross-
examination states that it is a registered partnership firm,
M.A. Hussain And Anr. vs Panchamal Vasudev Ganapath Kamath And ... on 9 June, 1970
He further relied on
the decision in the case of M.A.HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER
VS. S.PANCHAMAL VASUDEV GANAPATH KAMATH
AND BROS. AND ANOTHER5, wherein it was held that
the two requirements which must be fulfilled before a suit
can be instituted to enforce a contractual right by the firm
4
AIR 1977 SC 336
5
AIR 1970 MYSORE 299