Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: mumbai goa Year: 2016 Page 1 of about 4 results (0.059 seconds)

May 04 2016 (HC)

M/s. Nivaran Solutions and Others Vs. M/s. Aura Thia Spa Services Pvt. ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

Decided on : May-04-2016

..... no.1 is a company incorporated under the indian companies act and engaged in the business of offering various spa and saloon services. the respondent no.2 is the director of ..... courts of principal district judge, at panaji and margao had the territorial jurisdiction. he submits that in any case, the nature of jurisdiction exercised under the provisions of arbitration act by the principal civil court of original jurisdiction like the court of the principal district judge is supervisory in nature and, therefore, the aspect of jurisdiction is required to be ..... agreements. therefore, the appellants immediately demanded refund of their amount rs.30/- lakhs from the respondents. a notice was also sent to the respondents under section 11 of the arbitration act. the appellants, however, received an email from the respondents thereby unilaterally terminating both the agreements, one titled as memorandum of understanding-cum-unit franchisee agreement and the other as master ..... from an order dated 29.10.2014 passed on section 9 arbitration act application by the principal district judge, panji, goa refusing to exercise his authority under section 9 on the ground that the court has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter. 2. the appellant no.1 is a partnership firm and appellant nos.2 and 3 are its partners. the respondent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 04 2016 (HC)

M/s. Kalpana Mines and Minerals, Through its Proprietress, Kalpana Gaw ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

Decided on : Jul-04-2016

..... is in fact an agreement between the petitioner and one m/s. grand resources). he claimed that m/s grand resources is also a partnership firm of which one sayeed nazeemuddin, sayeed asimuddin, sayed zuber and 7 others are the partners. he states in categorical terms that none of ..... kalpana mines and minerals, through its proprietress, smt. kalpana gawade wife of prakash y. mainkar h. no.852/2, mainkar niwas, laxmi nagar, behind indian overseas bank, alto-porvorim, bardez, ga- 403 521. 23. this is an additional reason why the impugned judgments cannot be sustained. for the foregoing reasons ..... margao in criminal case no.209/oa/nia/2010/d convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act 1881 (the act for short) and the consequent sentence of simple imprisonment for six months and for payment of compensation of rs.1.5 crores has ..... voluntarily produced by pw1, tabrej and necessary averments have been made in the complaint with regard to ingredients of section 138 of negotiable instruments act. the contention of learned advocate dinesh naik that there is evidence beyond avermnets which cannot be considered, cannot be accepted. the demand draft ..... issued a notice dated 22/7/2010, which was returned unclaimed. this led the respondent to file a complaint under section 138 of the act against the petitioner. 3. at the trial the respondent examined shri tabrej hinglajkar, pw1. and produced certain documents on record. the petitioner did .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 22 2016 (HC)

Mayfair Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, Represented by its Secretary ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

Decided on : Jan-22-2016

..... incidental things. 3. in terms of these resolutions, construction of the building of the society was completed in the year 1970 by the contractor m/s. jkf enterprises, a partnership firm, of which the respondent was one of the partners. thereafter, the co-operative housing society was registered on 21/05/1971. a meeting of the general body was held ..... award dated 30th april, 1973 held that dispute filed by the petitioner against respondents 1 and 2 is not a dispute triable under section 91, maharashtra co-operative societies act, and hence the dispute be returned back to the petitioner society for filing before the appropriate court. the learned officer on special duty also held that the petitioner in ..... it reads as under: 93. transfer of disputes from one co-operative court to another and suspension of proceedings in certain cases. (1) .................................................................................. (2) notwithstanding anything contained in this act, the co-operative court, on an application made to it by any of the parties to the dispute, may, if it thinks fit suspend any proceedings in respect of any ..... court has held that the section is mandatory and imperatively requires that the disputes of the nature described in the section are referred to co-operative court , constituted under the act. subsection (3) further reinforces the mandatory nature of section 91 by providing for ouster of jurisdiction of the civil court. it lays down that no other court shall have .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 22 2016 (HC)

Mayfair Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, Represented by its Secretary ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

Decided on : Jan-22-2016

..... incidental things. 3. in terms of these resolutions, construction of the building of the society was completed in the year 1970 by the contractor m/s. jkf enterprises, a partnership firm, of which the respondent was one of the partners. thereafter, the co-operative housing society was registered on 21/05/1971. a meeting of the general body was held ..... award dated 30th april, 1973 held that dispute filed by the petitioner against respondents 1 and 2 is not a dispute triable under section 91, maharashtra co-operative societies act, and hence the dispute be returned back to the petitioner society for filing before the appropriate court. the learned officer on special duty also held that the petitioner in ..... it reads as under: 93. transfer of disputes from one co-operative court to another and suspension of proceedings in certain cases. (1) .................................................................................. (2) notwithstanding anything contained in this act, the co-operative court, on an application made to it by any of the parties to the dispute, may, if it thinks fit suspend any proceedings in respect of any ..... court has held that the section is mandatory and imperatively requires that the disputes of the nature described in the section are referred to co-operative court ?, constituted under the act. subsection (3) further reinforces the mandatory nature of section 91 by providing for ouster of jurisdiction of the civil court. it lays down that no other court shall have .....

Tag this Judgment!


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