Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: mumbai goa Year: 2015 Page 1 of about 5 results (0.041 seconds)

Mar 13 2015 (HC)

M/s Hotel Satkar and Another Vs. Krishnanath Nanu Chavdikar and Anothe ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

Decided on : Mar-13-2015

..... hand, shri j. godinho, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has pointed out that the suit is barred in terms of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, as admittedly the partnership was an unregistered partnership firm. learned counsel further pointed out that the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, that the appellants were enforcing a statutory right is ..... the learned addl. district judge, by judgment and decree dated 06.12.2004,had come to the conclusion that the suit is barred under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act and found that the findings of the learned judge that the respondents were tenants of the premises cannot be faulted and, consequently, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants. 10 ..... pointed out that on going through the ratio laid down therein, the findings of the courts below that the suit is barred in terms of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, are totally erroneous. learned senior advocate as such submits that the first substantial question of law be answered in favour of the appellants. learned senior advocate has further pointed ..... that the courts below have erroneously dismissed the suit filed by the appellants on the ground that the suit is barred under the provisions of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932, without noting that the suit filed by the appellants was to enforce the statutory obligations to vacate the disputed premises as the occupation of the respondents was that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 12 2015 (HC)

Kunda Madhukar Shetye and Others Vs. Shaila Subrao Shetye and Others

Court : Mumbai Goa

Decided on : Mar-12-2015

..... nature or change the contractual relationship without the consent of the plaintiff, since it would be in violation of section 12(c) of the indian partnership act. it was contended that decision to sever the contractual relationship with defendant nos.6, 7 and 8 would be a change in the ..... need to be considered. 33. the first ground is that there is no power of expulsion. the partnership deed is placed on record. i have perused the partnership deed. section 33 of the indian partnership act deals with expulsion of a partner. section 33 reads as under: 33. expulsion of a partner (1 ..... argument of the plaintiff is to be accepted then that would mean the present suit itself will be hit by bar of section 69 of partnership act. both the submissions prima facie have merit and therefore the argument regarding effect of non-registration cannot be considered. 38. as regard the ..... applicability of section 12(c) of the partnership act is concerned it was debated whether change of contractors would amount to change in nature of business. firstly, this ground would have to be ..... act. it was also contended that the report of the indian bureau of mines which was referred to by the majority was being contested before the appropriate authority and the said report is without any substance. it was therefore submitted that the plaintiff is right in contending that she is never expelled from the partnership .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 06 2015 (HC)

Anju Timblo, Managing Director of Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. and ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

Decided on : Aug-06-2015

..... m. a. hajare (original respondent no.6) is the chief accountant and financial controller of the company, while aparanji and company, which is a partnership firm of chartered accountants (original respondent no.7), is the statutory auditor of the company. prime minerals private ltd (pmpl) (original respondent no.8) ..... of 1974 ). and every proceeding before the bench shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 and 228 of the indian penal code and for the purpose of section 196 of that code.] (45 of 1860). (5) without prejudice to the provisions of subsections (4c ..... the respondents. 4. heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 5. these appeals under section 10f of companies act, 1956 (the act, for short) arise out of the order dated 18/05/2015, passed by the company law board (clb), new delhi on c. ..... can apply to such proceedings? 3. whether the impugned order, allowing amendment/ impleadment needs interference in exercise of jurisdiction available under section 10f of the act 4. what order? ? 25. at the outset, it may be mentioned that the amendments, which were in the nature of correction of clerical/ ..... following as party respondents: respondent no.party namerespondent no.11fomento resorts and hotels ltd., (frhl) a company incorporated under the provisions of companies act, 1956 and having its registeredoffice at cidade de goa, vainguinim beach, goa-403004.respondent no.12anju timblo, managing director of fomento resorts and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 17 2015 (HC)

M/s. Mavany Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another

Court : Mumbai Goa

Decided on : Apr-17-2015

..... support of the reopening notice dated 13/11/2000 as communicated to the appellant read as under: ??on referring to the correspondence with various parties and partnership deed dated 08.08.95 and the confidential report dtd. 05.10.99, received from the ddit(inv), panaji, it is seen that a theatre ..... consent of petitioner. an issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time even in appeal or execution. reliance in this regard could usefully be made to indian bank v/s manilal govindji khona reported in 2015 (3) scc 712. paras22 of the said judgment read as under : ??22. in sushilkumar mehta ..... the appellant merely 7 days after the issuing of the impugned notice. this aspect has not at all been considered by the authorities under the act, including the tribunal. the impugned order of the tribunal while rejecting the appellant's plea of the notice being without jurisdiction has not dealt with ..... arise on information received from any other source. this however, has not been the contention of the respondent - revenue before the authorities under the act. they have proceeded on the basis that the return of income filed in 1997 was available with the assessing officer at the time when the notice ..... assessment. the appellant attended the hearing before the assessing officer and contended that there was no transfer of property under section 2(47) of the act and therefore no occasion for capital gains arose. without prejudice it was also contended that the payment of rs.66.00 lakhs which was paid .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 16 2015 (HC)

Abdul Manan Neamati and Others Vs. State of Goa, Through Public Prosec ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

Decided on : Jun-16-2015

..... having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and ..... of the case may be stated as follows: the petitioners are the original accused while respondent nos. 2 to 4 are the original complainant/victims in criminal case no. ipc/45/15/d pending before the judicial magistrate first class, panaji. the petitioners are natives of afghanistan and presently on an educational visa and they are taking education in ..... nature and have serious impact on society. similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the prevention of corruption act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. but the criminal cases ..... the petitioners/accused is admittedly not an heinous and serious offence of mental depravity, murder or rape or dacoity or the offence under special statutes like prevention of corruption act. the offence levelled against the accused persons are not private in nature and have no serious impact on the society. the apex court in the case of giansingh v .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //