Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: recent Court: mumbai goa Page 1 of about 17 results (0.058 seconds)

Mar 13 2015 (HC)

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

Court : Mumbai Goa

..... 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

..... 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!

Sep 01 2014 (HC)

Kamrudin J. Mavany, Since deceased, through L.R.s. and Others Vs. Tajd ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

..... provisions of the said decree read with the provisions of portuguese commercial code, 1888, ??society per quotas ? cannot be equated with a partnership, under the indian partnership act, 1932 and that the same is nothing but a company and therefore, the finding of the learned single judge and the learned civil judge ..... senior division to the effect that ??society per quotas ? is a partnership is erroneous, since the above provisions have not been considered. he ..... 1986 afresh by considering the submissions now made in the present review application and to decide whether the said ??society per quotas ? is a partnership firm or a company and whether the provisions of article 1365 of the portuguese civil code are applicable to it or not. 8. in ..... the property 'udego' or 'mestabata' bearing registration no. 9795 was sold to partnership which consisted of the sons of the deceased and there was no dispute about this factual position. in paragraph 3 of the impugned order dated ..... civil judge senior division reveals that both the parties had made submissions by taking it for granted that said ??society per quotas ? is a partnership consisting of sons of the deceased. in paragraph 13 of the order dated 05.03.1992, the learned civil judge senior division has observed that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 02 2014 (HC)

M/S Reshmi Constructions Vs. Laxman Vithal Chunekar and Another

Court : Mumbai Goa

..... had no other alternative but to deposit the same in his personal account. he read out the provisions of sections 4, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19 and 22 of indian partnership act, 1932 ('the act') and submitted that shri pandharinath chafadkar being the partner of the complainant was the agent of the said firm and hence, he was bound to transfer the said amount ..... , he did not need any power of attorney to file complaint or to depose on behalf of the complainant. 16. (a) section 4 of the act lays down as under: 4. definition of "partnership", "partner", firm" and "firm name"- "partnership" is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them ..... against the firm, (f) acquire immovable property on behalf of the firm, (g) transfer immovable property belonging to the firm, or (h) enter into partnership on behalf of the firm.? 17. from the above provisions of the act, it is clear that every partner is an agent of the firm and his other partners for the purpose of business of the firm ..... acting for all. persons who have entered into partnership with one another are called individually "partners" and collectively "a firm", and the name under which their business is carried on is called the "firm name".? (b) section 9 of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 2013 (HC)

Vinayak Ranum D.P. Loundo Vs. Ms. Amira A. Razaq and Others

Court : Mumbai Goa

..... 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!

May 04 2016 (HC)

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

Court : Mumbai Goa

..... 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!

Mar 01 2013 (HC)

Sadannand Vaman Sadekar Vs. Manju Avinash Wardekar and Others

Court : Mumbai Goa

..... 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!

Jul 04 2016 (HC)

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

Court : Mumbai Goa

..... 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

..... 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

..... 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 //