Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1952]22CompCas306(Bom)
Vyas, J.1. These appeals arise out of an appellate decision of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) with appellate powers at Dhulia by which he disposed of two appeal, namely, Appeals Nos. 144 and 145 of 1943, which had arisen out of suits Nos. 82 and 63 respectively of 1942. In Appeal No, 144 of 1943 the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and granted a declaration that the partnership firm known by the name of the Dhulia-Amalner Motor Owners' Union had not been dissolved but had merely changed its name to the Dhulia-Amalner Motor Transport, Limited. He allowed an option to the plaintiff and his colleagues, the minority members of the partnership fir, of paying a share capital of Rs. 800 each with interest at 6 per cent. from February 21, 1942, onward and 'participating in the income and profits obtained by the Dhulia-Amalner Motor Transport, Limited, up to the date of the decree.' On the plaintiff failing to make the option, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1999(3)ALD578; [1999]238ITR661(AP)
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. In this reference case, the following questions have been referred by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal for the opinion of this Court, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh-III:'(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the ITAT should have held that since the Agreement dated 1-4-1980 was entered into not for doing business but only to facilitate transfer of the house properly held by the firm formed under -the deed of partnership dated 8-6-1979 to the Limited Company with a view to avoid payment of capital gains tax, the assessec is not entitled to registration under Section 185(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961; for the assessment year 1981-82?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT should have observed that the so called new firm which came into existence on 1-4-1980 had not carried on any business either during the year of account or in the subsequent accounting year and henc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2007(2)ARBLR446(Delhi); 139(2007)DLT71; 2007(95)DRJ581
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. This arbitration application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) seeking appointment of an arbitrator to refer the petitioner's claim to arbitration.2. It is not in dispute that the parties were running a partnership business under the name and style of M/s. Kreative Ambience vide a partnership deed dated 30-10-97. This partnership deed contained an arbitration agreement in Clauses No. 16 and 17, whereunder disputes arising between the parties were mutually agreed to be referred to one arbitrator, agreeable to both the parties.3. It appears that disputes arose between the parties and the respondent initially issued a notice of dissolution on 27-03-2002 purporting to dissolve the partnership firm with effect from the said date. The respondent sought the settlement of accounts of the partnership firm and demanded payment of 50% share out of the proceeds and assets of the partnership firm. In para 12 of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR1022; 1989(2)KarLJ48
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. This is a plaintiff's Revision Petition. Suit was filed, originally, describing the plaintiff as 'P. Mabusab & Sons., firm represented by Its partner P. Mabusab.' A similar statement was made at para-1 of the plaint. The suit claim is for the recovery of certain sum of money, allegedly borrowed by the defendant, evidenced by a promissory note.2. Actually, the firm had been dissolved on 21-10-1979, and Mabusab continued the business as the sole proprietor, under the trade name 'P. Mabusab & Sons.' Suit was filed in the year 1982. Realising the mistake committed in the description of the plaint, an application I.A. No. IV was filed in December, 1985 in the lower Court for the amendment of the plaint, so as to describe the plaintiff as 'P. Mabusab & Sons., by its proprietor, P. Mabusab'. The explanation of the applicant was that, P. Mabusab & Sons. was the trade name, having a 'good will' and therefore, he was carrying on the business in the said name and that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori189; 16(1950)CLT136
Panigrahi, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the District Judge, Cuttack, permitting the decree-holder to implead the present appellants as judgment-debtors under order 21, Rule 60 (s), Civil P. C. The decree-holder obtained his decree in Original Suit no. 18/193 of 1932 31 in the Court of the Munsif against Messrs. Biss-warlali Kishori Das alias Biseswarlal Kishorilal alleged to be a firm of Commission Agents. The decree was passed on 24th May 1933 and affirmed in appeal on 19th September 1933 and execution was taken out against the judgment-debtor in the year 1935 but it was unsuccessful. A second execution petition was filed on 28th July 1938 in execution case no. 333 of 1938, in which the judgment-debtor was described as Biseswarlal Kishorilal, Firm, Proprietor Mangturam Kishorilal, Mangturam appeared and objected to the execution of the decree against him on the ground that he was not a partner of the firm. The decree-holder, however, did not press his execution a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1984)2GLR1244
B.K. Mehta, J.1. By this group of Special Civil Applications the co-operative societies of diverse nature such as primary societies as well as federal societies extending service and credit facilities, producer societies banking societies rendering banking services at urban, district and State level, sales and purchase unions at taluka, district and State level, challenge the Gujarat Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Act of 1981) and the Gujarat Co-operative Societies (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Act of 1982) by which the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the principal Act) has been substantially amended. Since challenge to these two amending Acts in all these Special Civil Applications is almost on identical grounds and the main contentions urged by the Learned Counsel appearing in these matters are also identical, we propose to dispose of the enti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(4)ALLMR557; 2004(6)BomCR651; (2005)107BOMLR796; 2004(4)MhLj795
S.U. Kamdar, J. 1. The petitioner is challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 134 (2A) as amended by the Amending Act Maharashtra, 41 of 2000. Under the provisions of the Sub-section (2A) it is provided that no application for revision shall be entertained against the recovery certificate issued by the Registrar under Section 101 unless the applicant deposits with the concerned society, fifty percent, of the total amount of recoverable dues.2. These provisions of Sub-section (2A) of Section 154 are challenged by the petitioner in the context of the facts which are briefly enumerated as under:-3. A firm known as M/s. Gajanankrupa Enterprises availed of the loan facilities from the 1st respondent Bank. The petitioner before the Court was a partner of the said 2nd respondent firm. It is the case of the petitioner that with effect from 20.8.1991 the petitioner retired from the said firm and thus ceased to be a partner any further. However, it is an admitted posi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1987)1MLJ353
ORDERSengottuvelan, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff for attachment before judgment of the properties of one of the partners of the defendant firm under Order 38, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, read with Order 14, Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows : The applicant-plaintiff, viz., a partnership-firm, filed the above suit for recovering a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 due from the respondent/defendant which is also a partnership firm. The claim arises out of an agreement under which the respondent agreed to pay Rs. 13,50,000 as lease consideration to the applicant for taking on lease the exploitation rights of a Tamil Talkie picture all over the world. At the time of the release of the picture the respondent was not able to pay the entire consideration and had to leave an arrears of Rs. 1,35,000. The applicant refused to deliver any print for release till the payment of entire consideration. The respondent assured that he will withhold the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1991KAR2779; 1991(4)KarLJ503
K.A. Swami, J.1. This Appeal by the 7th defendant is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 30th September, 1978, passed by the Civil Judge, Mangalore, in O.S.No. 30/1971. Respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff. Respondents 2 to 12 are defendants 1 to 6 and 8 to 12 respectively. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 12 expired. Therefore, his legal representatives were brought oh record as defendants 13 to 18. They are respondents 13 to 18 in the appeal. In this Judgment, the present appellant would be referred to as the 7th defendant.2. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant (the 7th defendant) died. His legal representatives are brought on record. In this Judgment, the appellants being the legal heirs of the deceased 7th defendant, they would be referred as 7th defendant, respondent No. 1 as the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 11 and 13 to 18 as defendants 1 to 6 and 8 to 11 and 13 to 18 respectively.2.1. The trial Court has passed a decree in the following term...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - NC:2024. KHC:38869 CRL.P No.9909 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No.463 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE19H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION No.9909 OF2017(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.463 OF2018(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-) In Crl.P.9909 of 2017 BETWEEN: SMT G.K. AKSHATA, AGED ABOUT35YEARS, W/O DR. K.J.RUDRADEV, R/AT No.38/58, BASAVA KRUPA. GOVINDAPPA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560004. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI: KRISHNAMURTHY G. HASYAGAR, ADVOCATE) AND V. RAGHAVENDRA, AGED ABOUT50YEARS, S/O OF SRI. VASUDEVACHAR, MANAGING PARTNER & AUTHORISED SIGNATORY M/S PIONEER DEVELOPERS, - 2 - NC:2024. KHC:38869 CRL.P No.9909 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No.463 of 2018 KANASU, 241/A, 1ST CROSSS, II BLOCK, III PHASE, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU-560085. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAMESH P. KULKARNI., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER D...
Tag this Judgment!