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 : 2007(6)ALLMR652; 2007(6)BomCR317; (2007)109BOMLR1377; 2007(5)MhLj766
..... by the appellant for setting aside an exparte decree. 3. the respondent no. 1 'reliable industrial corporation' (for short respondent), which is stated to be a firm registered under the indian partnership act, filed a suit against the appellant bearing suit no. 1610 of 1992. in the plaint it was alleged that the appellant had borrowed from the respondent certain sum of money ..... decree was a nullity on the ground that partner of the respondent who had signed plaint was not shown to be a partner in the extract of registration of the partnership firm.9. for these reasons, the appeal is allowed. the impugned order is set aside and notice of motion is allowed as follows the judgment and order dated 12th june .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1963P& H479
..... in the same right can be set off against each other. the appellants, who are partners are governed by the indian partnership act section 25 of which makes it quite-clear that partners are liable jointly as well as severally for all acts binding on the firm. here a joint debt was owing to the appellants in their capacity as members of a firm .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1981(42)FLR116]; (1980)IILLJ255Bom; 1980MhLJ339
..... an interesting question of law has been raised by the appellant. 2. m/s. gateway auto services is a firm registered under the indian partnership act having its office at apollo pier road, bombay-1. the said firm is hereinafter referred to as the appellant. the appellant supplies petroleum ..... as the petrol pump are fully covered within the definition of manufacturing process given as in the indian factories act, 1948 and, therefore, the appellant is a factory and covered by the provisions of the act. the corporation also denied that the total number of employees working at the establishment of the ..... high court was as to whether the process carried on in the premises constituted manufacturing process within the meaning of s. 2(k) of the act, while interpreting the word, 'adapting' the andhra pradesh high court relied upon the dictionary meaning of the word 'adapting' given in the oxford ..... that in the lubrication service department only 14 employees are working. having regard to this number it cannot be said that the provisions of the act are applicable. so far as the office and fore court room is concerned, 25 parsons are employed but they are not concerned with the ..... chowpaty, bombay. it is also no more in dispute that the appellant-establishment is also registered under the provisions of the bombay shops and establishments act, 1948. 3. the officer of the employees' state insurance corporation visited the establishment of the appellant and found that the total number of employees .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(6)ALD278
..... the judgment-debtor from the firm, was in accordance with the provisions of sections 32 and 72 of the indian partnership act, 1932, for short 'the act'. learned counsel submits that the so-called retirement of the judgment-debtor from the firm, is a collusive act, to defeat the award passed by the lok adalat in the suit. he places reliance upon the judgment of ..... a consent award before the lok adalat, but left the enforcement of the award to be sorted out, between the appellant and the respondent herein.10. section 32 of the act is basically enacted, with an object of protecting the interest of third parties, and in particular, the creditors of a firm. its purport is to the effect that if a ..... murthy, learned counsel, for the appellant is that the retirement of the judgment-debtor from the firm, was not in accordance with the provisions of the act.8. sections 32 and 72 of the act prescribe a detailed procedure, in the matter of retirement of partners from the firm, and the consequences flowing from out of it. while section 72 exclusively deals .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(3)ALLMR873; 2003(5)BomCR501; 2003(27)PTC555(Bom); 45SCL335(Bom)
..... essential if it was to be extinguished, but this has subsequently been denied.'it is, therefore, clear that irrespective of the provisions of the indian partnership act, it cannot be the law that an action for passing-off cannot be maintained merely because the plaintiff has no business. therefore, the ..... possible to accept this submission. where the business is ceased on account of dissolution of the firm as is obvious from the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932, cessation of the business does not result in extinction of the goodwill. on the other hand, the law entitles a partner of ..... not yet complete.16. the question is does the goodwill in the business of the partnership firm exist in this situation 7 it seems to be clear that it does. section 14 of the indian partnership act, 1932 expressly stipulates that the property of the firm will include the goodwill of the ..... a case of dissolution of the firm and would have no application to a situation where a firm is being dissolved in the indian context under the indian partnership law which expressly recognizes the existence of goodwill after dissolution. moreover, in that case, there is a finding that the entire business ..... that such an injunction cannot be sought against a partner who has got the goodwill of the firm vide section 53. section 55 of the partnership act reproduced earlier, in fact, provides that in settling the accounts of a firm after dissolution, the goodwill shall, subject to the contract between the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC877; 1998(2)ALLMR(SC)57; JT1997(10)SC174; 1997(7)SCALE640; (1998)2SCC171; Supp6SCR543
..... presence and have solemnly affirmed that the particulars furnished therein are true.name of attesting witness designation address and seal, if available before me (price re. 1)form 'e'indian partnership act, 1932notice of change of constitution or dissolution of firm(see rule 4)firm regn. no. and datefirm name...registered address....partners in the above named firmwe, being agents ..... firms(see rule 3)we, the undersigned, being partners, hereby apply for registration as a firm and for that purpose supply the following particulars pursuant to section 58 of the indian partnership act, 1932 : --note 1. - for the registration of each firm a separate application is necessary. accordingly the applicants should apply in this application only particulars of the finn ..... in the high court of judicature at bombay on the original side. initially in the plaint, the constitutional validity of section 69(2a) of the indian partnership act (hereinafter called the 'act'), as amended by maharashtra act, was not raised. the 1st respondent moved a chamber summon no. 301/97 seeking permission of the court to carry out certain amendments to the ..... ) register of firmsfirm no.....name :...business : ... number of date of nature of remarks entry entry entry< .......----form 'h'(see rule 17)certificate of registration(national emblem) the indian partnership act, 1932 (act no. ix of 1932)registration no....it is certified that a firm by name...with its head office at...has this day been duly registered under the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2005Bom204; 2005(2)BomCR497; 2005(2)MhLj482; 64SCL559(Bom)
..... are framed against which i have recorded the findings for the reasons stated below :-issues findings1. whether plaintiffs' firm is registered under in the affirmative.the indian partnership act? if notwhat is its effect?2. do plaintiffs prove that there was a concluded in the negative.contract of sale of the suit property for rs.8 ..... ,000/- was paid by the partners on 30-11-1977 on behalf of the firm. he then admits that during the course of the business of the partnership firm, they used to make payment mostly by cheques. there is no reason why the payment of rs. 2,00,000/- made on 30-11-1977 ..... business, the partners of the plaintiffs, viz. he himself and manoharlal approached defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4. as stated earlier, defendant no. 2 is a partnership firm. defendant no. 3 is the director of the defendant no. 1 company as well as partner of defendant no. 2 firm. defendant no. 4 is ..... 020. the business of the defendant no. 1 private company is as manufacturer of electrodes and other allied articles. the business of the defendant no. 2 partnership firm is as financiers and builders. the defendant no. 3 is one of the directors of the defendant no. 1 company and also one of the partners ..... 30-11-1977 for purchase of basement-cum-godown premises as described in exhibit 'a' annexed to the plaint. 2. the plaintiffs are a partnership firm. they are carrying on business as manufacturers of and dealers in engineering goods. the defendant no. 1 is a private limited company. defendant no. 2 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2004)ILLJ895Bom; 2004(2)MhLj547
..... copper chimney, which was already covered under the provisions of the said act.3. the few facts relevant for the decision are that the petitioner is a partnership firm duly registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act and engaged in the business of running a hotel in the premises at ..... saki naka, andheri, mumbai. on completion of the said premises, the petitioner entered into an agreement with another partnership firm by name m ..... parties to arrive at the said finding. clause (6) of the agreement provides that though m/s. copper chimney is known as a speciality indian restaurant considering the customers and market demands, m/s. copper chimney is free to introduce different types of cuisines like chinese, continental etc, for ..... the fact that the nature of the business carried on in them was the same. in indian cable co. ltd. v. its workmen : (1962)illj409sc this court has held that he act that the balance sheet was prepared incorporating the trading results of all branches or that the ..... impugned order ignoring all these aspects and directing clubbing of the petitioner's establishment with m/s. copper chimney, the respondents-authorities have clearly acted arbitrarily and in contravention of the provisions of law, and therefore the impugned order cannot be sustained.5. the learned advocate for the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
..... -tax act, 1961, the tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-individual, shri gaurishankar agarwalla, was not the partner of the firm, m/s. chandulal ..... numbered applications are under section 256(2) of the i.t. act, 1961, asking this court to call for a statement from the tribunal on the following question of law : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper construction of section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932, section 2(23) and section 64 of the income ..... the hands of the minor sons of the assessee in the said firm were not includible in the assessment of the assessee under section 64(ii) of the income-tax act, 1961?' 2. we have very carefully perused the order of the tribunal and find that there is a categorical finding recorded by the tribunal to the effect that shri gaurishinkar .....Tag this Judgment!