REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Md Mofazzular Rahman Appellant

V/S

Md Sarfaraz Alam Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

PRATAPCHAND RAMCHAND AND COMPANY V. JHANGIRJI BOMANJI CHINOY [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA PRASAD SINGH V. ADYANATHGHATAK [REFERRED TO]
CHIMAN RAM BHATARANDORS. V. GANGA SAHAANDANR. [REFERRED TO]
SETH LOONKARAN SETHIYA VS. IVAN E JOHN [REFERRED TO]
SETH LOONKARAN SETHIYA VS. IVAN E JOHN [REFERRED TO]
SHARAD VASANT KOTAK VS. RAMNIKLAL MOHANLAL CHAWDA [REFERRED TO]
RAPTAKOS BRETT AND COMPANY LIMITED VS. GANESH PROPERTY [REFERRED TO]
HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA VS. ANAND KUMAR DEEPAK KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
SALEEM BHAI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SOPAN SUKHDEO SABLE VS. ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]
N V SRINIVASA MURTHY VS. MARIYAMMA [REFERRED TO]
A P CO OP WOOL SPG MILLS LTD VS. G M AND CO WOOL MERCHANTS [REFERRED TO]
SUNDERLAL AND SONS VS. YAGENDRA NATH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
S A HENRY VS. J V K RAO [REFERRED TO]
VASANT AMBADAS PANDIT VS. BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
VASANT AMBADAS PANDIT VS. BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
ASHISH VERMA VS. NEERAJ VYAS [REFERRED TO]
S B STEEL INDUSTRIES VS. INDIA RE ROLLING MILLS [REFERRED TO]
SREEDAM CHANDRA BHUR VS. TENCORI MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]
JAGADAMBA SINGH VS. KALAWATI DEVI AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
MADANURI SRI RAMA CHANDRA MURTHY VS. SYED JALAL [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit amongst the partners of a partnership firm, the defendant No. 1 has applied for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(2.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the defendant No. 1 has submitted, that the suit is barred under Section 69(1) of the Partnership Act, 1932. He has contended that, two criteria are required to be fulfilled under Section 69(1) of the Act of 1932 for it to be attracted. Firstly, the plaintiffs must have sued as partners of the partnership firm. The defendants have also to be sued as partners of such firm. Secondly, the suit has to be for the enforcement of the rights arising from the contract of partnership.

(3.) Referring to the pleadings in the plaint, learned senior advocate appearing for the defendant No. 1 has submitted that, the plaint discloses that the plaintiffs have filed the suit as partners of the partnership firm of Md.Sirajuddin& Company. Therefore, the first criterion under Section 69(1) of the Act of 1932 has been satisfied. The second criteriaalso stands satisfied according to him,as the plaint has been for the enforcement of alleged rights arising from the provisions of the deed of partnership. According to the plaintiffs, the partnership firm can never be dissolved and that, the defendant No. 1 has been acting in violation of the terms of Clauses 11, 19 and 21 of the partnership firm. The plaintiffs having claimed reliefs against the defendants on the basis of the partnership between the parties both the criteria stand satisfied.

Click here to view full judgment.

MD MOFAZZULAR RAHMAN Vs. MD SARFARAZ ALAM

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address