Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
India decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Supreme Court held the respondent firm’s registration was proved, but dismissed the recovery suit as time-barred. Section 14 did not save limitation.
The partnership between three partners did not stand dissolved on the death of one partner because the partnership deed expressly provided for continuance; IOCL had not terminated the dealership and therefore could not discontinue supply; IOCL misapplied its guidelines by insisting that all legal heirs join, and the High Court correctly issued mandamus directing IOCL to continue kerosene supply to the partnership firm until proper reconstitution or termination of the dealership, subject to any order of a probate or competent civil court and periodic review.
Source excerpt
The High Court erred in quashing the complaint for non-impleadment of the partnership firm or non-issuance of notice to it; because a partnership firm is a compendious name for its partners and partners are jointly and severally liable, notice to and prosecution of the partners suffices and any defect can be cured by permitting impleadment of the firm; accordingly the High Court order was set aside and the complaint restored with permission to arraign the firm.
Source excerpt
The property (land and the building of Hotel Alka Raje) became property of the partnership firm when late Bhairo Prasad Jaiswal, after constituting the partnership in 1972, brought the property into the firm's stock by jointly constructing and running the hotel with the partner; Section 14 of the Partnership Act treats property so brought in as firm property, and the High Court's order holding the firm to be owner-in-possession is upheld.
Source excerpt
The arbitration agreement in a partnership deed survives the death of a partner and the legal heirs/legal representatives of the deceased partner, though non-signatories, can be bound by and can invoke the arbitration clause; additionally, the right to sue for rendition of accounts survives to the legal representatives, hence the High Court correctly referred the dispute to arbitration and there was no error of law in its judgment.
Source excerpt
The arbitration clause in clause 23 of the partnership deed is not non-existent nor rendered unenforceable by language stating arbitration shall be optional; legal representatives or persons claiming through a partner can invoke the arbitration clause; although mutual consent is the mode for appointing an arbitrator, lack of agreement does not nullify the clause because the court/appointed arbitration centre can appoint an arbitrator under the A&C Act; accordingly the High Court order dismissing the Section 11(6) petition was set aside and the petition is allowed.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that the High Court was not justified in remanding the suit for trial de novo because it failed to advert to or deal with the Trial Court's findings or state cogent reasons for reversing the decree; Rules 23 and 23-A Order XLI CPC did not justify remand in the circumstances, Rule 24 required the Appellate Court to pronounce judgment if evidence on record was sufficient, and the High Court did not specify what additional evidence was necessary or that the plaintiff was prevented from adducing it; accordingly the impugned remand was set aside and th…
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that after the insertion of Section 45(4) by the Finance Act, 1987 (w.e.f. 01.04.1988) the crediting of revaluation surplus to partners' capital accounts amounted in effect to a distribution/transfer of capital assets falling within the word 'otherwise' in s.45(4); therefore the Assessing Officer's addition for short-term capital gains was valid and the High Court and ITAT orders deleting that addition were quashed and set aside and the AO's order restored.
Source excerpt
Where a complaint and the statutory notice contain specific averments that partners were in charge of and responsible for the firm's affairs and that a cheque was issued with their knowledge/consent, the complaint should be allowed to proceed; an accused partner must produce unimpeachable, incontrovertible evidence or circumstances to justify quashing under Section 482 CrPC, and mere bald denials or absence of particulars do not warrant quashing; burden shifts to the accused to prove lack of knowledge or due diligence under the first proviso to s.141.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that the 1995 written amendment deed, admitted to be executed by the parties, must be given primacy under Sections 91 and 92 Evidence Act; once defendants admitted execution, the burden lay on them to prove the 1995 deed was a mistake. The Court found no convincing proof of mistake, accepted the 1995 deed allocations and declared the plaintiffs together entitled to 50% of profits and losses until their expulsion on 18.6.2004; the expulsion itself was upheld as valid.
Source excerpt
Explore more
