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

1988 Supreme(Cal) 194

R.N.PYNE, PRATIBHA BONNERJEA
TILOKRAM GHOSH – Appellant
Versus
GITA RANI SADHUKHAN – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.PAUL, BIMAL KRISHNA CHATTERJI, DIPANKAR GHOSH, Jayanta Mitra, P.K.MULLICK

PRATIBHA BONNERJEA, J.

( 1 ) THE facts of this appeal are shortly as follows: on 9. 10. 53, a deed of Partnership was executed amongst the defendant No. 5 Monoranjan Banerjee, the defendant No. 6 Gopika Ranjan Banerjee, the defendant No. 7 Sachidananda Banerjee as well as one Harihar Mal and one Sibram Ghosh, since deceased and the appellant No. 1. The business carried on by the firm was for exhibiting cinematographic films under the name and style of "surasree Cinema". The Cinema House, one of the assets of the firm, was constructed on a plot of land situated in the district of Howrah. The said plot of land was purchased by the aforesaid six partners and was treated as one of the assets of the said firm. It was an unregistered Partnership and the partners had shares therein as set out in the said Deed. Subsequently Harihar Mal sold his share and the shares of the partners in the firm increased as set out in paragraph 7 of the plaint. This Deed of partnership contained an Arbitration Clause for resolving the disputes arising out of this partnership amongst the parties inter se by arbitration.

( 2 ) DISPUTES and differences arose between the Banerjee Group of Partners and the Ghos


















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