Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(2)BomCR657; (2001)2BOMLR145; (2001)1CompLJ415(Bom)
..... .5. there is no doubt about the fact that in the case of a partnership registered under the indian partnership act, 1932, the remedy for a dissolution of partnership is also provided in chapter vi of the act. the indian partnership act, 1932 provides for a dissolution of a partnership firm in section 39 and enunciates various modes of dissolution amongst them, in section 40 a ..... present purpose, it is clear that the provisions for winding upof the affairs of a firm which chapter vi of the indian partnership act containsbesides provisions for the dissolution of partnership are left untouched by section590 of the companies act, 1956. the cases cited in support of the respectivecontentions of the parties are not really on the point under consideration ..... company being wound up.'therefore the remedy to seek a dissolution of a registered partnership under the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 is not ousted by the provisions of part x of the companies act. 1956. equally, the existence of the remedy under the indian partnership act, 1932 to seek dissolution does not bar the remedy to apply for winding up ..... up and the respondent which is duly registered under the indian partnership act, 1932 is not an 'unregistered company' within the meaning of the expression used in the companies act. 1956.3. it is common ground that the first respondent is a partnership which was registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932. the question as to the maintainability of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 100ITR246(Bom)
..... state that all contracts between a person a, and a and others would be invalid. reference may be made in this connection to the provisions of section 46 of the indian partnership act, 1932, where a partner may enforce as against the firm of which he is a partner certain contractual rights by means of a suit (without dissolution), whereas other can only ..... accordingly it was invalid. in my view, it would be clearly invalid inasmuch as the plurality of persons necessary to constitute the relationship of partners under section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932, did not exist in that case.11. very strong reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on the decision of the privy council in lachhman das ..... authorities, or, if erroneously registered, the registration may be subsequently cancelled by the commissioner under his powers under section 33b of the act. the validity of a partnership would have to be decided with reference to the express provisions of the indian partnership act, and, in a case such as the one before us, with further reference to the principles of hindu law. if it ..... the registration. we have to consider whether that is the correct position in law.10. according to mr. hajarnavis, a partnership is a contractual relationship between persons who have agreed to do certain things as provided for under section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932. according to him, therefore, if there was such an agreement entered into by vandravan purshottam in his one .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(4)ALLMR77; 2003(6)BomCR594; 2004(1)MhLj71
..... controversy raised in the present group of petitions, facts in the first petition (writ petition no. 3433 of 2003) may briefly be stated.6. the petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act, 1932. it is a member of the federation of associations of maharashtra (fam). it is engaged in business of trading in jaggery since 1993. the petitioner is also ..... passed the following order:-'rule. returnable in eight weeks. rule on interim relief returnable in eight weeks. in the meantime respondents will not take any coercive action under the act.parties to act on copy of this order duly authenticated.'20. from the above order, it is clear that on writ petition, rule was issued, and was made returnable within eight ..... .'(emphasis supplied)24. it was submitted by the learned assistant government pleader on behalf of the authorities that coercive actions were being taken for violation of the provisions of the act and not for not possessing the licences as required by the amended provisions, which were made subject-matter of writ petition. according to the court, however, no further clarification ..... ii, turbhe, navi mumbai, along with jaggery inside lawfully traded under a licence possessed by the petitioner. that action was taken in purported exercise of powers under the bombay prohibition act, 1949 as amended in 2000, by which the definition of molasses has been amended so as to include jaggery / gur, vesting unfettered powers in the respondents, which would hinder .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2002Bom90; 2002(2)BomCR585; (2002)1BOMLR153; 2002(1)MhLj600
..... that the effect of non-registration is fatal to the validity of the reference and the award. the contention is based on section 69 of the indian partnership act as amended by the state of maharashtra. the provisions of section 69 are set out below :--'69. effect of non-registration. -- (1) no ..... was challenged before the learned single judge was that the respondent was not a registered firm and, in any event, was not registered under the indian partnership act at the material time and, therefore, could not make any claim in the arbitration proceedings and, therefore, the reference as well as the award ..... as a suit would not make any difference for the obvious reason that though sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 69 of the partnership act refer to a suit, sub-section (3) thereof makes those sub-sections applicable even to other proceedings which would include an application registered and numbered ..... in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered under the partnership act. mr. thakkar relied upon the decisions of the supreme court in jagdish chandra gupta v. kajaria traders (india) ltd., : 8scr50 , and delhi ..... claim.' 3. mr. thakkar contends that the reference to the arbitration of the bombay stock exchange constitute 'other proceeding' under section 69(3) of the partnership act. according to him, in view of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 69, no suit or proceeding shall be instituted in any .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 22CompCas306(Bom)
..... of the company, a third person altogether.19. mr. purshottam for the plaintiff has referred the court to section 37 of the indian partnership act, section 67 of the indian trusts act, certain observations at pages 444 and 448 of aggarwala's indian trusts act and decisions in ahmed musaji saleji v. hashim ebrahim saleji, and ramlal thakursidas v. lakhmichand muniram. in my opinion, however, ..... question whether the resolution passed at the meeting of august 24, 1941, could amount to a statutory notice within the meaning of section 43 of the indian partnership act. the next general meeting of the partnership firm was held on december 25, 1941, and the pertinent resolution was resolution no. 1 which stated that immediate steps should be taken for making a ..... done by the union and that the company was really the same entity as the union but under a different name. relying on section 37 of the indian partnership act mr. purshottam has contended that the majority section of the partnership firm are using the artificial creation of the company as their agent for doing the business with the property of the ..... mr. purshottam for the respondents who constitute a minority section in the partnership firm has strenuously contended that the partnership firm has not been dissolved but is still continuing, that the requisite procedure for the dissolution of a partnership as prescribed by section 40 and 43 of the indian partnership act was not followed, that the business which was done by the private .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1971Bom237; (1971)73BOMLR42; ILR1971Bom457; 1970MhLJ419
..... provides for transfer of goodwill after dissolution and the consequent agreements in restraint of trade.9. it will be noticed from the above arrangement of chapter vi of the indian partnership act that matters pertaining not only to the fact of dissolution and fixing the date thereof but also matters arising out of the fact of dissolution which pertain to the winding ..... separate and distinct matters or they are accessory to the principal object of the instrument. taking into consideration the fact that the legislature itself in the indian partnership act has treated the winding up of partnership as a part of its dissolution and the principles laid down which are set out hereinabove, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the ..... various ways therein provided, whereas sections 46 to 55 related to winding up and not to dissolution. we, however, find that the entire chapter vi of the indian partnership act tom section 39 to section 55 has been included in the chapter heading 'dissolution of a firm'. the legislature obviously intended to make no distinction between dissolution as such ..... the leading object or are separate and distinct, must in india depend upon the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932, and the bombay stamp act, 1958.8. chapter vi of the indian partnership act, 1932; deals with 'dissolution of a firm'. section 39 provides that the dissolution of partnership between all the partners of a firm is called the 'dissolution of the firm'. 'dissolution of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR64; 2009(111)BomLR1717; 2009BusLR444(Bom); 152CompCas571(Bom); 92SCL401(Bom)
..... material for our purpose are that the company petition no. 726 of 1998 was filed by m/s. kunal & co., a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act seeking an order for winding up of the appellant-company and an order for appointment of official liquidator as a liquidator of the company ..... was also sought.3. in the petition, it was averred that the appellant-company was incorporated on 17.2.1982 under the companies act, 1956 ..... motwani, (ii) shri manohar t. makhija and (iii) shri ramesh t. khanchandani. the said mr. makhija and mr. khanchandani who were non resident indians (nris) were introduced to the deponent by one shri sunil mirpuri who was an agent and broker in real estates. that the company was incorporated on 17 ..... circumstances, the petitioner-tarachand had lost confidence and was therefore seeking winding up of the company on just and equitable ground also. that the acts of omission and commission on the part of the company and particularly of its director shri motwani who has been in charge of the ..... its liabilities to acquire and purchase an immovable property being a plot at worli on auction sale by the appropriate authority under the income tax act and for meeting the consideration price of rs. 21,75,00,000/- the petitioner-tarachand provided advances to the appellant-company in the sum .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2005Bom301; 2005(3)ALLMR89; 2006(2)BomCR494; 2005(3)MhLj384
..... between the partners for the duration of their partnership, or for the determination of their partnership, the partnership is 'partnership at will'. . mr. godbole for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the supreme court ..... question, so far as this appeal is concerned, is, whether the partnership is at will as per clause 2 or whether clauses 11 and 12 are over-riding clause 2 of the partnership deed. my attention was drawn by mr. godbole in this regard to the indian partnership act, particularly section 7 which defines 'partnership at will' as under : where no provision is made by contract ..... lacs and, since the respondents neither giving accounts nor giving him any share, he was entitled for appointment of court receiver. 5. counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the partnership has extensive movable and immovable properties and if due share of the plaintiff and his interest is not protected, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss which will not be compensated ..... 1996 passed by mrs. justice k.k. baam and by that order the respondents were to act as an agent of the court receiver upon such terms and condition as the court receiver may deem fit. 4. counsel for the petitioner contended that the partnership was at will and it can be dissolved by any partner by giving a notice to .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(3)ALLMR915; 2003(3)ARBLR75(Bom); 2003(5)BomCR807; 2003(3)MhLj373
..... running business of a hotel.4. the first issue, therefore, with which we are concerned, is whether an application under section 9 of the act of 1996 is maintainable considering section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1996. the partnership agreement contains a clause for arbitration. the petitioners herein have not moved this court or judicial forum for referring the disputes to arbitration. the petitioners ..... the year 1990 was registered on 28th may, 1990. this has been so pointed out, considering section 69 of the indian partnership act as amended in the state of maharashtra. it is contended that this court would have no jurisdiction to hear and entertain the present petition. if that be so, reliefs as ..... have come before this court to protect the assets of the partnership pending decision by the arbitral tribunal consequent upon dissolution of the partnership. the arbitral clause was invoked .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom65; (1960)62BOMLR753
..... come up before me under clause 36 of the letters patent for the determination of the questions following:--'whether in view of the provisions contained in section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the present petition is maintainable and what provisions should be made for the costs of the parties to the petition.'there has been a difference of opinion between mr ..... ' used in section 69(3) cannot be construed so as to embrace an application made under section 8 of the indian arbitration act, 1940.17a. in the result, the question whether in view of the provisions contained in section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, the present petition is maintainable, is answered in' the affirmative.18. as regards costs, there is no reason to ..... appointed by consent of all the parties. in my view, the right to make an application under section 8 of the arbitration act is not a right arising from a contract within the meaning of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932.6. the next point to be considered is whether an application under section 8 is covered by the words 'other proceeding ..... 8 provided there was no other impediment in doing so. mr. justice mudholkar considered that section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, constituted such an impediment. mr. justice naik was of the contrary opinion. sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932, provide as follows:--'69(1). no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred .....Tag this Judgment!