August 2021 - Page 17 of 20

About Advocate Amitesh Giroti

Advocate Amitesh Giroti is an experienced Legal Associate with a demonstrated history of working in the legal service industry. He is skilled in Legal Assistance, Criminal Law and Legal Research

Duration of Internship

August 2021 (1 Month)

No. of Interns Required

1

How to Apply

Fill the Google Form to Apply

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd1xiwSOG48ySoYO4eIK0xLvr2_h9rtDvQZ2YAb4X7hFVuYvw/viewform?usp=sf_link

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GRdQLsHRwmB7QVRmS3WKtP

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

Case Number:

Award No 36 of 1951

Equivalent Citation:

AIR 1960 Cal 463

Bench:

Single Judge Bench, Justice G Mitter presiding

Decided On:

Thursday, 30^th July 1959

Relevant Acts And Sections:

Section 45 of the Partnership Act, 1932
Sections 249 and 251 of the Contract Act, 1872
Section 264 of the Contract Act, 1872
Section 45 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932
Section 36 of the Partnership Act, 1932
Section 208 of the Contract Act, 1872
Section 36 of the English Contract Act
Section 50 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Facts Of The Case In Brief:

M/s Juggilal Kamlapat and M/s Sew Chand Bagree had entered into a contract in the year 1948. M/s Juggilal Kamlapat (hereafter referred to as Juggilal) demanded Rs 31,000 in lieu of this contract from M/s Sew Chand Bagree (hereafter referred to as Sew Chand). There were various disagreements about which partners from Sew Chand were actually liable to pay the amount which only further delayed the payment. Aggrieved by this situation, Juggilal approached the High Court of Calcutta to reach a settlement. According to the application made to the Court, Manik Chand Bagree, Moti Chand Bagree, and Jankidas Bagree have been projected as the partners of the Sew Chand as even mentioned in the Registrar of Firms who owe money to Juggilal. This was opposed by Manik Chand and Moti Chand who submitted to the Court that Manik Chand and Moti Chand had dissolved their partnership in 1945. Long after the dissolution of the firm, Jankidas had assumed the name of this firm and started his business. However, this was not disclosed to the Registrar of Firms.

Issues Before The Court:

The issues which needed to be decided by the Court include:

If Manik Chand and Moti Chand were liable to pay M/s Juggilal Kamlapat the amount of claim
If the partnership firm of M/s Sew Chand Bagree stood dissolved as in the year 1945

Ratio Of The Case:

Since it was not possible to determine if Manik Chand and Moti Chand were to be made liable to pay the amount of claim demanded by the claimant, the case proceeded to an evidence-based trial. The counsel appearing for Juggilal pointed out to the Court that no public disclosure was made about the dissolution of the firm. The absence of evidence on paper corroborated this argument in favor of the claimant. The counsel further pointed out that the Bagrees did not attempt to produce any witness other than Sriratan Damani who would support their statements. However, the Court deemed it fit to consider other evidence such as the memorandum of understanding prepared by M/s Dutt and Sen, bearing signatures of the Bagree brothers, the Corporation of Calcutta’s issuance of the trade license, the opening of the account with Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd., and the letter written to Bank of Baroda Ltd. All these verify the Bagrees’ oral version of events. Thus Judge G K Mitter concluded that M/s Sew Chand Bagree had been dissolved in 1945. The Court also referred to various sections of the Indian Partnership Act, 1964 as well as the Indian Contract Act, 1870 Judge G K Mitter after considering the shreds of evidence presented in Court and the intricacies connected with it, came to a conclusion that Manik Chand and Moti Chand were not a partner of M/s Sew Chand Bagree while the contract was being executed.

Decision Of The Court:

The Court considered the fact that although the Registrar of Firms did not reflect the dissolution of M/s Sew Chand Bagree; it also kept in mind that Juggilal while entering into the contract with Sew Chand did not run through these records as a basis for entering this contract. Thus Moti Chand Bagree and Manik Chand Bagree were rescued from having any liability. Jankidas Bagree was directed to pay a sum of Rs 31,000 to M/s Juggilal Kamlapat and the claimant was allowed to add costs to this claim as they deemed fit.

The case analysis has been done by Debasmita Nandi, a first-year law student of CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY), LAVASA.

The case analysis has been edited by Shubham Yadav, a student of Banasthali Vidyapith, Jaipur.

Latest Posts

Archives

Equivalent citations:

1974 AIR 1094, 1975 SCR (1) 358

Bench:

KHANNA, HANS RAJ

BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH

CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.

Date Of Judgement:

01/05/1974

Act:

Indian Partnership Act. ss. 42 and 47,

Displaced Persons Claims Act, 1950

Facts:

The appellants and the respondent formed a partnership and entered into a lease agreement with the Custodian of Evacuee Property for a mill, which they gained control of on August 31, 1952. The period of the partnership was for 5 years, being the period of the said lease. After failing to pay one rent installment, the Custodian served the partners with a show-cause notice on 12-2-54, requesting that they explain why the lease should not be terminated. On account of specific financial difficulties, the parties entered into a second agreement on February 24, 1954. Due to disagreements between the appellants and the respondent, the appellants filed a lawsuit on December 20, 1960, alleging that after the Custodian terminated the lease on May 25, 1954, the two appellants and the respondent orally agreed not to dissolve the partnership despite the lease termination. They requested a declaration that the partnership between them and the respondent continued to exist under the terms of the agreement as stipulated in the partnership document dated February 24, 1954, and also prayed for a rendition of the partnership accounts.

On the other hand, the respondent claimed that the parties had reached no oral agreement and that the claim for a rendition of accounts was precluded by limitation.

The trial court found that the appellants had failed to establish that the parties had reached an oral agreement and that the claim for a rendition of accounts was time-barred.

The High Court confirmed the trial court’s findings on appeal.

Thus, the appeal was dismissed.

Issue:

(i)Is the Tribunal correct in overturning the CITY’s decision under s. 263 based on the certitudes and incidents of the case?

(ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in ruling that there was nothing improper with the assessee valuing the closing stock at cost rather than market price based on the certitudes and incidents of the case?

(iii) Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the assessee-capital firm’s assets were not transferred to the partners, notwithstanding the fact that the assessee-firm was dissolved on December 18, 1987, based on the case’s certitudes and incidents?

Ratio Of The Case:

Rai Bahadur Kanwar Raj Nath & Ors. v. Pramod C. Bhatt, Custodian of Evacuee Property. The Custodian has the power to cancel the lease under section 12 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, and the notification made by the Custodian was legitimate. The Court did not rule on the partnership’s eligibility to possess the mills under the lease agreement.

Sathappa Chetty & Ors. v. S. N. Subrahmanyan Chetty & Ors. The aforementioned case did not involve a firm formed for a specific period of time. No issue of a firm dissolving on the expiration of the defined term of partnership occurred.

Decision Of The Court:

The supreme court held observed the proposition could not be disputed. The partnership exists only to complete ongoing transactions, wind up the business, and adjust partners’ interests after dissolution. Unless a contract specifies otherwise, a firm formed for a specific period will be dissolved at the end of that period.

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, although without cost, due to the circumstances.

The case analysis has been done by Shruti Bose, a student at Christ (Deemed to be University), Lavasa.

The case analysis has been edited by Shubham Yadav, a student at Banasthali Vidyapith, Jaipur.

Latest Posts

Archives

Company’s Profile

AnovIP is a premier legal services firm with foreign clientele only. Our clients range from individual scientist, scientific organization, Universities, Corporate and Law Firm. We deal in gamut of services like Patents Trademarks Design Copyright and other IP services. We provide various benefits like one month bonus salary, paid holidays/leave travelling allowance, higher education finance support etc. Also, we ensure to provide a healthy and joyful work environment with lot of focus on overall professional and personal development. You may consider visiting our website www.anovip.com to understand more about our services and business.

Job Title: Group Manager / AVP – Patent Analytics team

Experience

10 – 15 years (relevant IP exp.)

Location

Green Park, South Delhi (Work from office)

Job Responsibilities

Will be responsible for managing a team of Patent analysts on various projects;
Engages in outreach and education relative to intellectual property and technology transfer practices;
Developing and implementing strategies to complete various projects in timely manner to meet client deadlines;
Engaged in client interaction on various projects for discussion on inventions;
Undertaking project synopsis based on client’s requirements, IP Based SWOT Analysis, IP Creation, etc.;
Managing and conducting several projects, such as Infringing Product Identification, Claim Construction, Infringement Analysis and Evidence-of-Use Preparation;
Conducting Prior-art, Novelty, Patentability, Invalidity Search;
Managing and conducting several projects as mentioned above, Final Quality Check (QC) on Deliverables/Reports;
Preparing Project Proposals based on the client’s requirements and availability of resources;
Preparing and Reviewing Key Features, Search Strategy, Project Scope, etc.;
Reviewing and Quality Check (QC) on Deliverables/Reports.

Requirement

M.Tech / M.E. (Electronics & Communication) is must;
Should have min. 2 years of relevant experience into team handling;
Strong analytical skills with thorough understanding of the technology domain;
Should possess experience in evidence of use charts, preparation of claim charts, patent mining, feasibility analysis;
Expertise in working on various databases;
Excellent written and verbal communication (in English) with particular ability in creative and persuasive writing;
Excellent knowledge of Microsoft Excel, PowerPoint, Word;
Capable of handling client requests individually;
Thorough understanding of the technology domain;
Comfortable working in team as well as independently.

Key Skills Required

Project Management, Client Support, Team Management, Intellectual Property, Validity/Invalidity, Novelty, Freedom-to-Operate, and Landscape search, Infringement Analysis, Claim amendment, Patentability Search, FTO Analysis, Patent Mining.

HOW TO APPLY

Interested candidates can share their CVs along with current compensation details at vishakha@anovip.com