Back
BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN
Surja Narayan Pradhan – Appellant
Versus
Jumden Lepcha – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. - The regular first appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2019 passed in Money Suit No.279 of 2017 by the learned District Judge, Special Division-I Sikkim at Gangtok (learned District Judge) dismissing the suit.
2. The plaint was filed by the appellant-Surja Narayan Pradhan (the plaintiff) against the respondents-Jumden Lepcha (defendant no.1) and O.T. Lepcha (defendant no.2). The plaint alleged that the plaintiff had taken on lease a property owned by the defendants for running a hotel. According to the plaint it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 that the plaintiff would construct and extend further one and half stories to the existing residential building, renovate the premises and convert it into a hotel at the cost of the plaintiff. It was the case of the plaintiff that, he had, during the course of construction deposited money in the loan account of defendant no.1 maintained in the State Bank of India towards payment of loan availed by the defendant no.1 in the name of the hotel. It was further averred that the plaintiff deposited money in the account of defendant no.2 as well in the State Bank of In
The plaintiff was entitled to recover payments owed under agreements, affirming that individual rights supersede partnership firm status and that jurisdictional dismissal was erroneous.
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 property of the firm includes all property and rights brought into the stock of the firm, and the partnership firm became the owner of the....
A notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is valid if served to one partner, binding the partnership firm, unless contested at the first opportunity.
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....
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
