Legal Reference Library

High Court of Bombay Vinod Kumar Saboo v. Sudarshan Vishwanath Malpani and Ors. MANU/MH/0542/2017 03.04.2017 Civil Disputes and liabilities between parties need to be adjudicated, based upon partnership deed Appellant-Original Defendant has filed Appeal and prayed to quash and set aside impugned Judgment passed by Single Judge. In facts of present case, Appellant and Respondents formed and signed a partnership deed and purchased a membership card of NSEI Limited in name of partnership firm i.e."Money Mint". During year 1998-1999, disputes and differences arose between them. On 2nd August, 2000, they signed an arrangement. Claim and counter-claim made through correspondences. On 1st August, 2004, Respondents filed Suit for recovery/claim of Rs. 40 lakhs and has taken out Summons for Judgment. On 16th August, 2005, Single Judge passed impugned order and thereby directed to deposit full amount of Rs. 40 lakhs. Being aggrieved, Appellant has filed present Appeal. Ap...

The Supreme Court in Nandkishor Savalaram Malu vs. Hanumanmal G. Biyani, has held that when a partnership firm is the tenant, then an employee of the firm is not a necessary party to the eviction proceedings initiated by the landlord. The bench comprising Justice AK Sikri and Justice AM Sapre held that such persons since claim through the firm, they have no right of their own in the tenancy and in the demised property qua landlord. The trial court, though passed decree against the firm and its partners, found that no eviction decree can be passed against the employee of the partnership firm as he was in an unauthorised occupation of the suit house as a trespasser. Liberty to file a separate suit against the employee was granted to the landlord. On an appeal by landlord, the First Appellate Court held that being an employee of the firm, he was bound by the decree passed against the firm and its partners. The high court, exercising its revisional powers, restored the trial court order se...

In ANANTHESH BHAKTA REPRESENTED BY MOTHER USHA A.BHAKTA & ORS. VERSUS NAYANA S. BHAKTA & ORS., the Hon'ble Supreme Court had following three issues arises for consideration: (1) Whether nonfiling of either original or certified copy of retirement deed and partnership deed along with application I.A.No. IV dated 09.05.2014 entailed dismissal of the application as per section 8(2) of 1996 Act. (2) Whether the fact that all the parties to the suit being not parties to the retirement deed/partnership deed, the Court was not entitled to make the reference relying on arbitration agreement. (3) Whether dispute pertaining to unregistered partnership deed cannot be referred to an arbitration despite there being arbitration agreement in the deed of retirement/partnership deed. For Issue no. 1, the Hon'ble court held that Section 8(2) has to be interpreted to mean that the court shall not consider any application filed by the party under Section 8(1) unless i...

The Supreme Court in M/s Umesh Goel vs.Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. has held that the expression “other proceedings” in Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act does not include Arbitration Proceedings and the ban imposed under the said Section to can have no application to Arbitral proceedings as well as the Arbitration Award.Division Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Justices Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla and C. Nagappan, allowing the appeal against the High Court judgment, also held that Section 35 and 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 is specifically restricted to treat the Award as a decree of a Court and does not equate Arbitration proceedings with court proceedings. BACKGROUND The Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the appeal filed under Section 37 of the Act took a view that the counter claim in an Arbitral Proceedings is covered by the expression “other proceedings” contained in Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act and the appella...

 Arbitral Proceedings will not come under the expression “other proceedings” of Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act, the Court held. The Supreme Court in M/s Umesh Goel vs.Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Group Housing ociety Ltd. has held that the expression “other proceedings” in Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act does not include Arbitration Proceedings and the ban imposed under the said Section to can have no application to Arbitral proceedings as well as the Arbitration Award.Division Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Justices Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla and C. Nagappan, allowing the appeal against the High Court judgment, also held that Section 35 and 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 is specifically restricted to treat the Award as a decree of a Court and does not equate Arbitration proceedings with court proceedings. BACKGROUND The Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the appeal filed under Section 37 of the Act took a view that the counter claim in a...

The Gujarat High Court has held that when a complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, does not name the Partnership firm as accused, but only the partners, Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked to implead the Partnership firm as the accused, to save such a serious infirmity in the complaint. Justice J.B. Pardiwala observed that when a complaint under Section 138 of the Act has the initial defect in its sustainability, such a defect cannot be cured by amending the proceedings by virtue of an application under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. Background In a Section 138 complaint, the complainant named six individuals as accused being partners of a partnership firm running in the name of ‘Swastik Construction’, but the partnership firm, as a legal entity or juristic person, was not arraigned as an accused. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance upon the said complaint and ordered issue of process against all the six partners named as accused in t...