Mumbai Court October 1976 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Vasantrao Dattaji Dhanwatay and anr. Vs. Shyamrao Dattaji Dhanwatay an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom188; 1976MhLJ836
ORDER1. Ex facie an interesting but on closer scrutiny an infirm question of law is raised by the present revision. The entire controversy submitted has something to do with the application of provisions of Part X of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Companies Act), as urged, excluding the operation per force the statute of Chapter VI of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter called the Partnership Act). Indeed, the main plank of submission is that in a suit purporting to have been filed under Chapter VI of the Partnership Act, if the partnership in issue consists of more than seven partners, but below twenty, on the date of the suit for dissolution of such partnership, per force the provisions of Part X of the Companies Act are attracted and by virtue of the provisions of Section 582 read with Section 583, the ordinary civil court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the only relief can be provided by the competent Company Court with regard to w...
Krishnaji Mahadeo Bapat Vs. Wamanrao Balwantrao Shinde and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom36
ORDER1. This revision is against the order of the learned District Judge, Ratnagiri, dated 3rd April, 1976, dismissing Miscellaneous Appeal No. 10 of 1975. That appeal was from the order of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khed, in Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 1974. That application was filed by the defendant, against whom an ex parte decree has been passed on 29th June, 1974, for restoration of the suit for hearing on merits. 2. The suit was originally filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chiplun. Thereafter by an order of the District Court it was transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khed. One Mr. Chitley, Advocate, had put in the Vakalatnama for the petitioner before me in the Court at Chiplun. The Court at Khed gave a notice of hearing to the said Advocate. On the day namely on 28th June 1974 both the Advocate and the petitioner remained absent. Evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was taken on affidavit. An affidavit of the Mukhtya...
The Groundnut Extractions Export Development Association Vs. State Ban ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1976
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR184
Mridul, J.1. This matter comes up before me for confirmation of the Report of the Taxing Master of this Court dated July 80, 1973. The Report has bean made by the Taxing Master pursuant to the reference made under Section 5 of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 by Nain J. on June 12, 1973.2. Plaintiffs, a representative association of Groundnut Extraction Exporters filed the above suit as an interpleader suit under the provisions of Order XXXV of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that a sum of Rs. 1,10,217.74P was due and payable by the plaintiffs to the defendants No. 3 by way of export development assistance. In respect of the said debt, it was claimed by defendants No. 1 that they had a lien and the amount was payable to them. The defendants No. 2 assorted their claim to the said amour t by virtue of an order of attachment before judgment in their favour. The defendants No. 2 had instituted a suit against defendants No. 3 in the Court of the subordinate Judge at Vijayanagaram for...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›