Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J
Rakesh Kumar Paswan, Son Of Late Basudeo Ram Paswan – Appellant
Versus
Sanjeev Ranjan, Son Of Saryu Paswan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the Opposite party.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 15.02.2023 passed in Money Suit No.9 of 2016 by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Seraikella whereby the petition under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant has been rejected by the learned court.
3. Mr. Kumar Harsh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an unemployed person and belongs to scheduled caste category. Indian Oil Group Company had floated an Advertisement Notice for appointment of retail sellers for different places in Jharkhand. In clause-11 it has been disclosed that the persons belong to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes will be given the facilities. The petitioner being eligible had applied for Kanke Ranchi area and for the same has deposited the requisite fee and thereafter, the Indian Oil Company Limited has communicated vide letter dated 29.06.2009 to the petitioner regarding proposal of retail out-let dealership at Adityapur, distric
Suits between partners of an unregistered partnership firm for recovery of money are barred under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
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 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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdictional fact of registration of the partnership firm must be averred in the plaint to avoid the suit being rendered void under Sect....
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.
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....
Point of Law : Section 154 (1)(c) of Assam Land and Revenue Regulation cannot act as a bar as regards the maintainability of suit for which said cannot also be a substantial question of law involved ....
An unregistered partnership firm cannot enforce rights arising from a contract under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, which prohibits such suits against third parties.
Unregistered partnership firms can enforce rights for accounts and dissolution via arbitration, as outlined in the Indian Partnership Act, Section 69.
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
