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

CHANDER SHEKHAR SHARMA, ARUN KUMAR GOEL, SAROJ SHARMA
Ms. Reena Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Kapil Jain – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Sukh Dev Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.

ORDER (ORAL)

Arun Kumar Goel, (Retd.) President— Respondent is duly served as per office report. He is neither present nor is represented by anyone.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and with his assistance have also examined the record of complaint file.

3. As per averments made in the complaint in it paragraph 2, case of the appellant is, that on 8th July, 2003 a Deed of Partnership was signed between the parties whereby business in the field of education was set up by them. Copy of partnership was enclosed as annexure C1 with the complaint. According to her, in terms of annexure C1, she handed over a cheque of Rs.40,000 to the respondent, this was towards her capital investment. Her further case was, that if any partner desired to retire from the business, this could be done by giving three months notice. This amount was to carry capital interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Appellant was also discharging her duties as a tutor in the subjects of Chemistry, Personal Development, and was attending for Front Officer Counseling. Her salary was fixed at Rs. 5,000 per month. She was allowed to attend classes on English speaking course as a student for a nominal co



















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