REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

MAFIZUDDIN KHAN CHOUDHURY Appellant

V/S

HABIBUDDIN SHEIKH Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

HORMASJI V. PESTANJI [REFERRED TO]
RAKHAL CHANDRA V. DOMODUR SHAHA [REFERRED TO]
MAXIM NORDENFELT GUNS AND AMMUNITION C. V. NORDENFELT [REFERRED TO]
EVANTUREL V. EVANTUREL [REFERRED TO]
RITCHIE V. SMITH [REFERRED TO]
BOISTUB CHURN V. WOOMA CHURN [REFERRED TO]
MARUDAMUTHU PILLAI V. RANGASAMI MOOPANI [REFERRED TO]
JANSON V. DRIEFONTEIN CONSOLIDATED MINES LTD. [REFERRED TO]
GANESH V. SHRIPAD [REFERRED TO]
JUDOONATH V. NOBIN CHUNDER [REFERRED TO]
BEHARI LALL V. JAGADISH CHUNDER [REFERRED TO]
THITHI PAKURUDASU V. BHEEMUDU [REFERRED TO]
NALAIN PADMANABHAM V. SAIT BADRINADH [REFERRED TO]
GAURI SHANKAR V. MUMTAZ ALI [REFERRED TO]
RAMANAYADU V. SEETHARAMAYYA [REFERRED TO]
SATYALA V. BHOGAVALLI [REFERRED TO]
JNANENDRA NATH V. CHANDI CHARAN [REFERRED TO]
CHANDI CHARAN V. JNANENDRANATH [REFERRED TO]
KARSON SADASHIV V. GATLU SHIVAJI [REFERRED TO]
BRAHMAYYA V. RAMIAH [REFERRED TO]
CHAMPSEY V. GOBORDHANDAS [REFERRED TO]
VELU PADAYACHI VS. SIVASOORIAM PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
J D ITALIA VS. DCOWASJEE [REFERRED TO]
RAMA MOOPAN VS. MUTHA MOOPAN [REFERRED TO]
PISUPATI RAMA RAO VS. TADEPALLI PAPAYYA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff appellant had filed a suit for dissolution of a partnership with defendant No. 1 and for accounts. The plaintiff alleged that defendant Habibuddin had entered with him in partnership for carrying on business in silk in the District of Nadia. In Bhadra, 1352 B. S. the two partners agreed to start a spinning and reeling factory with the profits of the original business and purchased a machine and set up 12 ghais for the working of the factory. It was agreed that each would have a moiety share in the Profits, assets and stock in trade of the factory and that on the dissolution of the partnership the partners would first of all repay back the capital contributed by each and then they would share equally the profits and the assets. The plaintiff further alleged that the management of the factory and of the business was entrusted to the defendant respondent who kept the funds and maintained accounts. The latter had refused either to pay the dues of the plaintiff appellant or to render accounts in spite of repeated demands and that he was appropriating to himself the funds and stock in trade of the business. The accounts previous to the starting of the factory were stated to have been mutually adjusted and the plaintiff prayed for accounts subsequent to that period and for the dissolution of the partnership.

(2.) The defendant respondent denied that there had been any partnership agreement between the parties. In the alternative it was pleaded that even if there had been an agreement as alleged the same was illegal under the Defence of India Rules, the Partnership Act and other laws in force at the time.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge passed a preliminary decree holding inter alia that there was a partnership as alleged by the plaintiff.

Click here to view full judgment.

MAFIZUDDIN KHAN CHOUDHURY Vs. HABIBUDDIN SHEIKH

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address