Back
MANISH PITALE
Columbia Hospital & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Maharashtra Industries – Respondent
JUDGMENT
MANISH PITALE, J. - The original defendant No.9 is the petitioner before this Court, challenging concurrent orders passed by the two Courts below. The respondent No.1 is the original plaintiff while respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are the original defendant Nos. 2 to 6 before the Courts below.
2. The respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration, perpetual and mandatory injunction under Sec. 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, before the Small Causes Court at Nagpur, against the original defendant Nos.1 to 8. Thereafter, the defendant No.9 i.e. the present petitioner was added as a party to the aforesaid suit. The said suit was filed on 21/05/2009, wherein it was stated that the respondent No.1 i.e. M/s Maharashtra Industries was a registered partnership firm in which Kailashchandra Jankilal Bundiwal and Mohanlal Balmukund Bundiwal, were partners. The plaintiff firm was stated to be a registered partnership firm bearing registration No. 907 of 1978-79. The plaintiff firm claimed that the suit property in its possession was wrongly and illegally taken over by the original defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the intervening night of 14/05/2009 and 15/05/2009. It was submitted that the s
A suit filed by a dissolved partnership firm is not maintainable under Sec. 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932, and the decree should be restricted to the area covered by the original tenancy agreement.
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....
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....
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....
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 held that a partner's possession of dissolved firm property does not create ownership rights against co-owners, and claims of adverse possession are not maintainable.
The death of a partner in a partnership firm does not cause abatement of appeals against the firm under Order XXX of the Code of Civil Procedure.
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
