SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(SC) 392

A.R.LAKSHMANAN, ALTAMAS KABIR
Ravi Prakash Goel – Appellant
Versus
Chandra Prakash Goel – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.—Leave granted.

2. The above appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 10.02.2006 passed by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Arbitration Application No. 7 of 2005 dismissing the application moved by the appellant under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrator.

BACKGROUND FACTS :

3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – Chandra Prakash Goel and Rakesh Aggarwal along with Dulari Devi, mother of the appellant - Ravi Prakash Goel and Pushplata were carrying on business of sale and purchase of sanitary goods in the name and style of M/s Kumar and Company under the Partnership Deed dated 09.08.1983. Pushplata retired from partnership w.e.f. 31.03.1992. Thereafter, other partners carried on the business and a new partnership deed was executed on 01.04.1992.

Clause 5 of the same provided that the net profits of the partnership business as per accounts maintained after deduction of all necessary expenses shall be divided and distributed amongst the partners at the close of each accounting year in the following ratio:

1)Sri Chandra Prakash Goel, Respondent No.1 - 31%

2)Sri Rakesh






















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top