Search Results for "partners not impleaded"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Motor Accident Claim Case — Death Not Arising O...
Bombay High Court Dismisses Petitioner's Challenge to Arbitral Award in Commerci...
Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Attachment of Property in NSEL Scam C...
Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Customs Classification Dispute — Bulk Pet F...

Search Results for "partners not impleaded"

126 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 126 result(s)

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Upholds Appointment of Sole Arbitrator in Commercial Dispute — Arbitration Agreement Binding on Non-Signatory LLP Partners. Section 37(1)(c) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Appeal against order rejecting challenge to arbitrator's appointment dismissed as arbitration clause in LLP agreement binds all partners.

1 Jun 2026

The case involves a commercial appeal filed by Alabama Design Consultants LLP, SDSS Management Services LLP, and Mr. Udaya Shankar Krishnappa against ...

High Court

High Court Dismisses Arbitration Application and Petition for Interim Measures in Partnership Dispute Over Commercial Project. No Arbitration Agreement Found in Memorandum of Understanding Dated 16 October 2017 Under Sections 9 and 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Thus Relief Denied.

4 Mar 2026

The dispute arose from a partnership firm, Respondents, involved in developing 'Ventura Commercial Hub'. The petitioner, was admitted as a partner in ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Arbitration Case, Clarifying Jurisdiction Requirements Under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court Held That Service of Section 21 Notice and Inclusion in Section 11 Application Are Not Prerequisites for Arbitral Tribunal to Exercise Jurisdiction Over a Person, and Impleadment is Based on Being Party to Arbitration Agreement.

17 Apr 2025

The dispute arose from an agreement dated 01.06.2012 between the appellant and respondent no. 1 to form a Limited Liability Partnership (respondent no...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Concurrent Orders in Suit Under Section 33 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 — Petitioner Failed to Show Any Error in Findings of Courts Below.

6 Jun 2022

The petitioner, M/s Columbia Hospital & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., was the original defendant No.9 in a suit filed by respondent No.1, M/s Maharashtra...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Section 11 Applications for Appointment of Arbitrator in Partnership Disputes Involving Legal Heirs of Deceased Partner. The Court held that the arbitration clause in the partnership deed is binding on the legal representatives of the deceased partner, and the applicants being daughters and legal heirs are entitled to invoke arbitration.

6 Jun 2022

The judgment concerns four applications filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by Priya Rishi Bhuta and another, who ar...

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Complaint Against Sleeping Partner in Negotiable Instruments Act Case — No Prima Facie Case as Partner Did Not Sign Cheque or Participate in Business. The court held that a sleeping partner who did not sign the cheque and was not involved in the business cannot be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process.

9 Dec 2020

The applicant, Ajay Rampal Sarda, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of Criminal...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeals in Property Suit — Upholds Refusal to Strike Out Defence Under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC for Failure to File Written Statement Within 90 Days. The court held that the power to strike out defence is discretionary and not automatic, and that non-disclosure of defence under Order 6A Rule 3 CPC does not justify striking out.

21 Dec 2017

The present appeals arise from a suit filed in 1987 by Behram Nowrosji Gamadia and Jehangir Dhan Mistri (original plaintiffs) against several defendan...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Petition to Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree in Recovery Suit — Respondents Show Sufficient Cause for Non-Appearance Under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Court holds that the trial court's rejection of application to set aside ex-parte decree was erroneous as the respondents were not duly served and had a valid defence.

5 May 2014

The petitioner, M/s Cosme Mathias Menezes Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit for recovery of money against M/s Naguesh Electronics, initially described as a prop...

High Court

Bombay High Court Grants Interim Injunction Against Trademark Infringement in Favor of Plaintiff. Passing Off Claim Deferred Due to Pending Rectification Proceedings Under Section 124 of Trade Marks Act, 1999.

11 Apr 2012

The plaintiffs, Hem Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and three individuals (erstwhile partners of a firm), filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing of...

High Court

Bombay High Court Sets Aside Insolvency Notice Against Partners Not Impleaded in Suit — Leave Under Order 21 Rule 50(2) CPC Required. Insolvency Notice Against Alleged Partners Without Prior Leave Under Order 21 Rule 50(2) CPC is Invalid as It Is a Step in Execution.

17 Aug 2010

The judgment debtors, M/s. Shiva Trading Corporation (a firm) and its alleged partners Gulab S. Daga and Jatin Devi Daga, filed a motion to set aside ...

1 2 3

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)