Back
UMESH M ADIGA
Venkataraya S Nayak – Appellant
Versus
D. Vijaygopal Mallya – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This is the defendant's appeal against the decree and judgment passed in RA No.126/2004 on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.) Hubballi dated 12.12.2006.
2. I refer the parties as per their rankings before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. To dispose of this appeal, brief facts of the case of both the parties before the trial Court were as under:
It was the case of the plaintiff that he has been running the business of 'Glow Sign Boards and Labels'. The defendant joined the said business as working partner without any investment and a formal partnership deed was entered into between the parties on 01.12.1998. Entire capital of Rs.2,50,000/- has been contributed by the plaintiff and 30% of the profit of the business was agreed to be shared with the defendant and 70% of the profit has to be paid to the plaintiff. The said partnership business was running in the name and style of M/s Vinyl Prints and Designs.
4. Even after entering into partnership and change in the name of business, it has been run as proprietary concern. The role of the defendant was like a servant or subordinate. In the place of salary, he has been paid 30% of the profit of the busines
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of unregistered partnership deeds as evidence and the applicability of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, rendering ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is not maintainable and is inherently defective and no....
A suit for recovery of money by partners of an unregistered firm is not maintainable under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which mandates registration for such suits.
The court affirmed that suits regarding partnership rights can proceed even if the firm is unregistered and emphasized the requirement of proper evidence to establish claims of profit-sharing.
The non-registration of a partnership firm as required under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 renders the suits filed by the unregistered firm non est in law, and subsequent registra....
An unregistered partnership firm cannot file a suit for enforcement of a contract against a third party, as per Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act.
Unregistered partnership firms can enforce rights for accounts and dissolution via arbitration, as outlined in the Indian Partnership Act, Section 69.
Point of law: No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing....
Important PointChanges in the constitution of a firm does not affect the registration once made but information about changes have to be given and failure to comply attracts penalties u/s 69-A of the....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
