Back
N. D. OJHA, R. K. SHUKLA
STATE – Appellant
Versus
HAMID KHAN – Respondent
( 1 ) THIS is a defendants first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29th March, 1971 passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Aligarh decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents for recovery of Rs. 75,000/- with costs along with interest pendente lite and future at the rate of six per cent per annum. The suit was instituted by the respondents on the allegations that the firm plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was a registered firm, that an agreement had been entered into between the plaintiffs and the Public Works Department of the Uttar Pradesh Government at Narora whereby the plaintiff firm was to carry out certain works in connection with the construction of a barrage on the river Ganga. The claim of the plaintiff-respondents was that the amount in respect of which the suit has been instituted was payable to them by the defendant-appellant in connection with the aforesaid work done by them. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant on various grounds and on the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed as many as twelve issues. The parties produced evidence in support of their respective cases and on its perusal the trial court decreed the su
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.
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 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.
Suits between partners of an unregistered partnership firm for recovery of money are barred under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of unregistered partnership deeds as evidence and the applicability of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, rendering ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for recovery of money under the terms of an unregistered partnership deed is not maintainable due to the statutory bar created by Se....
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
