Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Mar-05-2013
..... was not a partner of m/s. ranum d. p. loundo and co. the tribunal also found that the partnership was in existence in the year 1950 without noting that the partnership firm is stated to be a partnership firm duly registered under the indian partnership act, 1956 as can be found from the cause title in case no. rent/arc/5/1994. it is common ..... knowledge that the said act was not in force in the year 1950. though the tribunal has noted that in the ..... his vehicles and therefore he is liable for eviction under section 22(2)(i) of the said rent control act. the contention of the respondents essentially was upon the fact that the petitioner had sublet the suit premises in favour of the partnership firm m/s r. d. p. loundo. it is further their contention that in view of the fact that ..... was incumbent upon the authorities below to ascertain as to whether the parking of the vehicles of the partnership firm m/s r. d. p. loundo would result in subletting within the meaning of section 22(2)(b)(i) of the rent control act. 11. in the judgment reported in 1987(3) scc 538, in the case of helper girdharbhai v/s .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Mar-01-2013
..... him the valuation done is exorbitant apart from the fact that the same does not meet the requirements of valuing the assets as contemplated under the partnership act. the learned counsel further pointed out that the valuer has valued the assets considering what would be the costs of putting up such construction as ..... the amount which has been shown by the learned arbitrator is in accordance with the terms of the partnership act and whether there is any infraction in complying with the provisions of section 48 of the partnership act, is contended by shri thali, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. on perusal of the impugned judgment ..... justified to award interest at the rate of 12% per annum as according to him even in the partnership act, the interest which the partner is entitled on account of his share in the partnership assets is much on the lower side. the learned counsel as such submits that in any event considering ..... the learned judge has rightly complied with the principles of law governing the right of the partners in terms of the partnership act, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. the learned counsel further pointed out that the provisions of section 48 of the ..... apex court has observed at para 5 thus: ??5. it seems to us that looking to the scheme of the indian act no other view can reasonably be taken. the whole concept of partnership is to embark upon a joint venture and for that purpose to bring in as capital money or even property including .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Jul-05-2013
..... costs plus 20% of the total expenditure. after calling for quotations, the plaintiff entrusted the work of wreck removal to the defendant no. 2, a partnership firm carrying on the business of undersea diving and salvage operations. for that an agreement dated 27/11/1989 was executed under which the defendant no. ..... mormugao port. there is also no doubt that the deputy conservator of port has no jurisdiction beyond the port area. under section 10(1) of the indian ports act, 1908, the conservator can remove or cause to be removed such obstruction. sub-section (2) of section 10 requires the owner to pay the expenses ..... port administration taking action by deploying a suitable salvage firm to execute the work entirely at the risk and cost of the plaintiff as per the indian ports act and port regulations and if that happens, then the said costs plus 20% of the total expenditure will be recovered from the owner of the ..... wreck was lying within the port area and that there was navigational hazard. it is submitted that chapter iii of the indian ports act, 1908 (the act, for short) deals with the appointment of the conservator and his powers. he submitted that in terms of section 10 of the said ..... of the removal thereof and it also provides for punishment for causing such obstruction without any lawful excuse. section 11 of the ports act provides of recovery of the expenses of removal from the owner. thus, it can be safely presumed that the deputy conservator of port would require .....Tag this Judgment!