1. K. D. Kamath And Company VS Commissioner Of Income-tax, Bangalore - 11 Oct 71

Kamath, the managing partner, the business was being carried on by the said managing partner, on behalf of all the partners. – These ... , in and by which, the working partners have agreed not to raise loans or pledge the firms interest. – There is no contract to the ... , as agent of the other partners to pledge the firms interest or raise loan for partnership purposes. – This right, according to ... In witness whereof the parties to this agreement have set their hands and seals to this Agreement as under : ( ... with him, whose decision shall be final and binding upon all the working partners. ... any working partner or partners is/are not working and conducting to the best interest of the firm, the principal partner shall

India - Supreme Court

2. State of Rajasthan through Sub-Registrar, Bundi (Rajasthan) VS Arun Kumar Mittal son of Shri Devaki Nandan Mittal - 18 Jan 17

have been conferred upon three partners in their individual capacities, irrespective of the firm, as such merely because Shri Arun ... Bina Mittal being the partners of the firm and not the firm itself has been recorded as lessee – In other words the lease hold rights ... Now This Amendment Witness As Follows:- "That the ... In witness hereof the parties here to have signed this deed of Amendment ... Beena Mittal partners or the firm M/s Rajasthan Hume pipe Manufacturing Co. and rest of clauses and material of the lease deed shall

India - Rajasthan

3. Dharamvir VS Khazanchi Dass - 29 Sep 08

the partners either jointly or severally or anybody else especially authorised by the partners in this behalf. ... No witness from the bank has been examined to prove that partnership had operated any account ... It has not been shown when and what amount was taken by the partners towards profit.

India - Punjab

4. Syed Irfan Sulaiman VS New Amma Hospitals, Represented by its authorized signatory and Managing Partner, Mohd. Faiaz Khan - 15 Nov 16

The deed ended with the following recital: ‘IN WITNESS ... The partners of the plaintiff ... WHEREOF WE THE PARTNERS OF THIS DEED DO SOLEMNLY DECLARE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN THIS DEED ARE AGREED BY US AND IN

India - Andhra

5. R. JANAKIAMMAL VS S. K. KUMARASAMY(DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES - 30 Jun 21

(1) Compromise of suit – No suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that compromise on which decree is based was not lawful. However, when there is a dispute as to whether an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, same shall be decided by Court which recorded compromise.(2) An agreement, which is void or voidable under Indian Contract Act, shall not be deemed to be lawful as is provided by Explanation to Rule 3 of Order XXIII of CPC.(3) Intention of parties to terminate status of joint family is a relevant factor to determine status of Hindu Undivided Family.

Even after partition, three brothers continued to live under the same roof and carried on business as partners

India - Supreme Court

6. BABU LAL VS STATE OF DELHI - 26 May 81

Public Witness Public Witness 1/f) dated April 2, 1974 provides that the partners shall personally attend to the business of the ... Public Witness PW1/b, Ex, Public Witness PW1/d and Ex. Public Witness PW1/g) which cannot be used against the accused. ... Malik (Public Witness 2) U. D.

India - Delhi

7. Sri Rama Krishna Commercial Corporation, Bangalore VS K. R. Janardhana Gupta - 06 Jun 02

and Ex.B-7 andEx.A-1 and Ex.A-2, and especially in view of the fact that the other defendants had not chosen to enter into the witness ... are not the partners of the said firm. ... The case of the plaintiff-respondent is that defendants 2 to 5 are the partners of the 1st defendant firm - 1st appellant firm and

India - Andhra

8. Asuram VS Niranjandass - 25 Apr 63

The other two partners have come in the witness box and supported the case of the plaintiff ... have to pay any amount due under the said promissory note to any of these two partners. ... Das had come in the witness box and deposed that they had nothing to do with the said promissory note which had fallen to the share

India - Rajasthan

9. Verdhman India Products VS Sulkshan Luthra - 02 Mar 10

Dishonour of cheque--Complaint by partnership firm--Who can file--In partnership firm each partner’s act on behalf of firm is valid--No specific authorisation is required for partner to file a complaint.Dishonour of cheque--Service of Notice--Presumption--Once notice has been sent by registered post with acknowledgement due in a correct address, it must be presumed that the service has been made effective.

can still pay amount of cheque within 15 days--Matter remitted to trial court to decide afresh--In case payment is made complaint shall ... ’s act on behalf of firm is valid--No specific authorisation is required for partner to file a complaint. ... Instruments Act, 1881, S.138 & 142--Dishonour of cheque--Complaint by partnership firm--Who can file--In partnership firm each partner ... After the accused was summoned, the complainant stepped again into the witness box as CW ... , no opportunity was available with the accused to assail the authenticity of the same by putting the relevant questions to the witness ... -2 and reiterated that he was one of the partners of the said firm and was well aware of the facts of the case.

India - Punjab

10. Ponnusamy VS K. K. Subramaniam - 21 Jun 10

Ratiosa. In respect of an unregistered partnership firm, the suit could be filed for the enforcement of any right to dissolution, accounts and for the enforcement of any right or power to realise the property of a dissolved firm is maintainable.b. Burden to prove that any registered document is sham and nominal is heavy on the person who makes such plea.c. The properties of the partnership firm that remain after meeting its liabilities are to be divided among the partners according to their share/ ratio and in case the properties left after meeting the liabilities of the firm are not divisible or that it would not be profitable to divide it, then each partner shall have a right to make an offer for the purchase of the others’ share. In case, none of the partners comes forward to purchase the shares of others in such immovable properties of the firm, which are impartible or cannot be partitioned without causing diminution of its value, then the same can be sold to third parties, either by auction or otherwise and the sale proceeds can be divided among the partners according to their share ratio.

Which partner shall take the property and pay the money of the value of the shares to the other appellants, shall be decided by a ... are having right to take share in the property of the firm after settling the dues-Injunction could be granted against the partners ... In case, none of the partners comes forward to purchase the shares of others in such immovable properties of the firm, which are ... Furthermore, the third appellant Avinashi Gounder did not enter the witness box to give ... The other witness, namely D.W.2, examined on the side of the appellants/defendants, has not deposed ... One witness was examined as P.W.1 and 29 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A29 on the side of the respondent/cross objector/plaintiff

India - Madras