{"id":246015,"date":"2021-03-24T09:30:55","date_gmt":"2021-03-24T04:00:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=246015"},"modified":"2021-03-26T11:00:31","modified_gmt":"2021-03-26T05:30:31","slug":"partnership-firm","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/24\/partnership-firm\/","title":{"rendered":"P&#038;H HC | Experience gained by erstwhile partnership firm could not be construed as experience of partners in an individual capacity; HC dismisses the petition"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Punjab and Haryana High Court: <\/strong>The Division Bench comprising of Ravi Shanker Jha, CJ., and Arun Palli, J., heard the instant petition wherein the issue before the Bench was whether a partner can claim the expedience of erstwhile partnership firm in an individual capacity. The Bench stated,<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><strong>\u201cThe petitioner herein having applied independently without any partners, consortium or joint venture, cannot rely upon the technical qualifications of a third party (erstwhile firm) to claim eligibility.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The petitioner-A.G. Construction Co. was a proprietorship, which had submitted a bid in response to a tender released by the respondent authority. The bid submitted by the petitioner was rejected upon technical evaluation by the duly constituted committee; the representation against rejection of its bid had also been declined. Earlier, the petitioner was a partner in B.G. Constructions Co. (erstwhile partnership firm), and held 50% share. The said firm was dissolved on 25-06-2019 and it was agreed between the partners that they were free to set up their new ventures and could also use the technical and financial credentials of the firm corresponding to their respective shares.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The eligibility for applying for tender, as set out by the respondent was:<\/p>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li><em>Satisfactorily completed, during the last five years at least three Multi Storey RCC Framed Structure Government Office Building\/Institute Building works costing not less than the amount equal to 40% of the estimated cost (Rs. 3,95,47,577) of the tender; or <\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>Two Multi Storey RCC Framed Structure Government Office Building\/Institute Building works costing not less than the amount equal to 60% of the estimated cost of the tender; or <\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>One Multi Storey RCC Framed Structure Government Office Building\/Institute Building work of aggregate cost not less than the amount equal to 80% of the estimated cost put to tender. <\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>\u00a0<\/em>The tender submitted by the petitioner was rejected during technical evaluation, for the authority opined that the work experience of B.G. Constructions Co., (erstwhile partnership firm) could not be reckoned as an experience of the petitioner.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The grievance of the petitioner was that the experience gained by the proprietor of the petitioner-concern, as a partner in B.G. Constructions Co., was required to be computed in proportion to his 50% share. Therefore, he was entitled to claim proportionate experience in terms of his share out of the experience acquired by the firm. Accordingly, for the work done by the firm at Rs.852 lakhs, the petitioner, in terms of his share, should be deemed to have executed one work valuing Rs. 426 lakhs (852\/2).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Reliance was placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in <em>New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India<\/em>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/A5I635c0\">(1995) 1 SCC 478<\/a>, wherein it was held that <em>in the absence of any exclusionary clause in the tender document, it could not be said that past experience of a partner of the firm could not be considered.<\/em> The petitioner had argued that partnership firm is not a separate legal entity but only a compendious mode of describing its partners, therefore, the experience of the firm is indeed the experience of its partners, and thus, ought to have been reckoned, while evaluating the eligibility of the petitioner.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong><u>Whether the experience gained by erstwhile partnership firm could be construed as experience of the petitioner in his individual capacity? <\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The experience in the firm is acquired by the combined, collective and integrated labour of its partners, who, apart from their individual investments, had pooled in their respective resources, skill, knowledge, experience, ideas and information.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Bench opined that it was the firm that had executed the project and not the partners individually. It is true that from the same subject of experience, more than one can gain experience, however, that must not by itself evince the conclusion that each person gaining \u2018experience\u2019 (limited to their contribution) in the output jointly created by them, is entitled to the benefit of the output in its entirety.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">\u201c\u2026<strong>experience of a firm, in reality, is nothing but the experience of the partners who compose it; such experience of a firm is not in its entirety attributable to each individual partner, but attributable only to the collective effort of all partners concerned.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>\u00a0<\/strong>The experience gained by the erstwhile firm was acquired owing to combined, collective and integrated labour and resources of its partners, and hence, was so inseparably interwoven that it was neither divisible nor could it be apportioned amongst its partners. Unlike a joint holding where a co-sharer has a right to seek partition of his defined share.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Hence, the Bench opined that coercing a tender inviting authority to blindly treat experience in the name of an erstwhile partnership firm as the experience of the partner in his individual capacity, would militate against every judicious consideration.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong><u>Whether the work experience of the firm could be claimed in proportion to the share \u00a0held by the petitioner? <\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The financial stakes or share held by a partner per se has no nexus with the experience he is required to possess in terms of the tender conditions. In other words, experience is not a commodity that could be acquired for consideration<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">If the project executed by the firm was reduced in proportion to the share of the petitioner (50%), then, as a necessary consequence, not only the work\/project but even the experience that stems from its execution would lose its character and conclusivity, for that too would be reduced proportionately<\/span>.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The petitioner, sole proprietorship concern having applied for the tender independently, had sought to rely on an experience certificate issued to a third party (B.G. Constructions Co.). The relationship of Ajay Kumar Garg (proprietor of the petitioner concern) with such a third party (erstwhile firm) did not engender any benefit to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner having applied independently without any partners, consortium or joint venture, could not rely upon the technical qualifications of a third party (erstwhile firm) to claim eligibility.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Lastly, the Bench opined that the interpretation, construction and as to how a provision, clause or a condition of a tender document has to be construed is primarily the domain of the author of such document and in the instant case no one else was better positioned and equipped than the authority itself in understanding the tender document\u2019s requirements. Hence, the Bench denied existence of unfairness, arbitrariness, irrationality or <em>mala fides<\/em>, either in the respondent authority\u2019s rejection of the experience certificate, or in the decision-making process which preceded the respondent authority\u2019s rejection of the petitioner\u2019s technical bid being non-responsive. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.[A.G. Construction Co. v. Food Corporation of India, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/CMWCEytp\"><b>2021 SCC OnLine P&amp;H 306<\/b><\/a>, decided on 10-02-2021]<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.<\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Appearance before the Court by:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For the Petitioner: Adv. Puneet Gupta,<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For the Respondent: Adv. K.K. Gupta,<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Punjab and Haryana High Court: The Division Bench comprising of Ravi Shanker Jha, CJ., and Arun Palli, J., heard the instant petition <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[29785,43128,2551],"class_list":["post-246015","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-law","tag-partnership-firm","tag-Punjab_and_Haryana_High_Court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.4 (Yoast SEO v27.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>P&amp;H HC | Experience gained by erstwhile partnership firm could not be construed as experience of partners in an individual capacity; HC dismisses the petition | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Partnership Firm\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/24\/partnership-firm\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P&amp;H HC | Experience gained by erstwhile partnership firm could not be construed as experience of partners in an individual capacity; HC dismisses the petition\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Partnership Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/24\/partnership-firm\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-03-24T04:00:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-03-26T05:30:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/panjab_and_hariyana_high_court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/03\\\/24\\\/partnership-firm\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/03\\\/24\\\/partnership-firm\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Editor\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"headline\":\"P&#038;H HC | Experience gained by erstwhile partnership firm could not be construed as experience of partners in an individual capacity; HC dismisses the petition\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-03-24T04:00:55+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-03-26T05:30:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/03\\\/24\\\/partnership-firm\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1147,\"commentCount\":0,\"keywords\":[\"law\",\"Partnership Firm\",\"Punjab and Haryana High Court\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/03\\\/24\\\/partnership-firm\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/03\\\/24\\\/partnership-firm\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/03\\\/24\\\/partnership-firm\\\/\",\"name\":\"P&H HC | Experience gained by erstwhile partnership firm could not be construed as experience of partners in an individual capacity; HC dismisses the petition | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-03-24T04:00:55+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-03-26T05:30:31+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Partnership Firm\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/03\\\/24\\\/partnership-firm\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/03\\\/24\\\/partnership-firm\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/03\\\/24\\\/partnership-firm\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P&#038;H HC | Experience gained by erstwhile partnership firm could not be construed as experience of partners in an individual capacity; HC dismisses the petition\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_4\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"P&H HC | Experience gained by erstwhile partnership firm could not be construed as experience of partners in an individual capacity; HC dismisses the petition | SCC Times","description":"Partnership Firm","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/24\/partnership-firm\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P&H HC | Experience gained by erstwhile partnership firm could not be construed as experience of partners in an individual capacity; HC dismisses the petition","og_description":"Partnership Firm","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/24\/partnership-firm\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-03-24T04:00:55+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-03-26T05:30:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/panjab_and_hariyana_high_court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/24\/partnership-firm\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/24\/partnership-firm\/"},"author":{"name":"Editor","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"headline":"P&#038;H HC | Experience gained by erstwhile partnership firm could not be construed as experience of partners in an individual capacity; HC dismisses the petition","datePublished":"2021-03-24T04:00:55+00:00","dateModified":"2021-03-26T05:30:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/24\/partnership-firm\/"},"wordCount":1147,"commentCount":0,"keywords":["law","Partnership Firm","Punjab and Haryana High Court"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/24\/partnership-firm\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/24\/partnership-firm\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/24\/partnership-firm\/","name":"P&H HC | Experience gained by erstwhile partnership firm could not be construed as experience of partners in an individual capacity; HC dismisses the petition | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-03-24T04:00:55+00:00","dateModified":"2021-03-26T05:30:31+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Partnership Firm","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/24\/partnership-firm\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/24\/partnership-firm\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/24\/partnership-firm\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P&#038;H HC | Experience gained by erstwhile partnership firm could not be construed as experience of partners in an individual capacity; HC dismisses the petition"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":282215,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/23\/delhi-high-court-rejects-review-petition-finding-no-error-apparent-on-face-of-record-partnership-firm-death-of-a-partner-dissolution-of-company-legalnews-legalresearch-legalawareness\/","url_meta":{"origin":246015,"position":0},"title":"Delhi High Court | Errors that are apparent on record can be subjected to review and not the ones required to be discovered through a process of legal reasoning\/ arguments","author":"Editor","date":"January 23, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: In a review petition filed under Section 114 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code on behalf of the partners of the respondent(\u2018firm') seeking a review of the order and consequently praying for an order cancelling the appointment of Sole Arbitrator, Chandra Dhari Singh, J.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":339278,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/17\/pending-litigation-among-partners-cannot-estop-partner-from-invoking-arbitration-punjab-haryana-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":246015,"position":1},"title":"Pendency of civil and criminal litigation among partners cannot estop a partner from invoking arbitration clause: Punjab and Haryana HC","author":"Editor","date":"January 17, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cTechnicality cannot be attached with a notice served under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as that would defeat the objective of the statute, which provides for a speedy resolution of the disputes.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Punjab and Haryana High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Punjab-and-Haryana-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Punjab-and-Haryana-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Punjab-and-Haryana-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Punjab-and-Haryana-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":247861,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/05\/05\/ker-hc-cas-right-to-practice-can-icai-refuse-to-recognize-retirement-of-ca-from-a-firm-hc-explains-legal-position\/","url_meta":{"origin":246015,"position":2},"title":"Ker HC| CAs Right to Practice: Can ICAI refuse to recognize retirement of CA from a firm? HC explains legal position","author":"Editor","date":"May 5, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Kerala High Court: N.Nagaresh, J., pronounced a landmark judgment regarding right to practice of Chartered Accountants. The Bench held, \u201cThe decision of ICAI not to recognize and record the retirement of the petitioner from 'M\/s. R. Kumar and Associates' will therefore cause unnecessary and unwarranted hindrance to the professional advancement\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":238026,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/27\/kar-hc-material-placed-on-record-sufficiently-prove-offences-under-ss-120-b-and-420-ipc-and-no-infirmity-warranting-interference-under-art-226-noted-petition-dismissed\/","url_meta":{"origin":246015,"position":3},"title":"Kar HC | Material placed on record sufficiently prove offences under Ss. 120-B and 420 IPC and no infirmity warranting interference under Art. 226 noted; Petition dismissed","author":"Editor","date":"October 27, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: John Michael Cunha J., while rejecting the present petition, recorded no error or infirmity in the challenged order warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. \u00a0Brief Facts The Petitioner in the present case has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":254293,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/16\/aadhaar-card-as-proof-of-age\/","url_meta":{"origin":246015,"position":4},"title":"P&#038;H HC | Is Aadhaar Card a firm proof of age? HC answers while granting protection to a couple who married against wishes of family","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 16, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Punjab and Haryana High Court: Amol Rattan Singh, J., directed protection to couple who were facing threats after getting married against the wishes of their family. Petitioners sought the protection of life and liberty as the petitioners had married each other against the wishes of the respondents. Petitioners counsel had\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":208684,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/24\/ph-hc-decision-on-claim-of-parity-of-grade-in-service-to-be-made-by-passing-speaking-order\/","url_meta":{"origin":246015,"position":5},"title":"P&#038;H HC | Decision on claim of parity of grade in service to be made by passing speaking order","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 24, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Punjab and Haryana High Court: This writ petition was filed before a Bench of Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J., where petitioner had claimed parity of grade with the C&V cadre. Facts of the case were that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent school as a Sewing Teacher. This position was\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246015","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=246015"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246015\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=246015"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=246015"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=246015"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}