Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
PANKAJ JAIN
Vishal Dhingra – Appellant
Versus
Rajinder Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PANKAJ JAIN, J.
1. Defendant is in second appeal aggrieved of judgement and decree passed by both the Courts below whereby suit filed by the plaintiff seeking dissolution of the partnership and rendition of the accounts stands decreed. For convenience, parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit, i.e. the appellant as defendant and respondent as plaintiff.
2. Parties to the lis are real brothers. As per plaintiff, he along with defendant entered into a partnership business. They executed a partnership deed. Both of them became partners to 1/2 share each. Partnership firm was registered. Defendant at the time of execution of partnership deed was working with LIC at New Delhi. A plot was purchased by the plaintiff in their joint name. The same was mortgaged to raise loan of Rs.3.00 lakhs from PNB, Civil Lines, Rohtak. Father as well as brother-in-law of the parties to the lis signed the loan documents as guarantors. Building was constructed by the plaintiff. Defendant after leaving his service joined plaintiff.
3. Plaintiff claims to have discovered that defendant was misappropriating the funds of firm and diverting the same to his own account cl
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.
Even if plea of limitation is not set up as a defence, Court has to dismiss suit if it is barred by limitation.
A suit for specific performance cannot be maintained by partners of a dissolved firm; and claims are barred under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act and the Limitation Act.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of mutual agreement for partnership dissolution and the significance of partnership deeds in determining the intention of the pa....
Ownership of property alleged as partnership assets must be proven, and previous suits on the same cause of action bar subsequent suits under Order II Rule 2 CPC.
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....
A suit for accounts of a dissolved partnership and a share in the immovable properties of the partnership is barred by limitation under Article 106 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
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
