Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(1)ALLMR243; 2002(1)BomCR141
..... the said notice came to be refused, which fact is accepted by the trial court and a decree has been passed against the original plaintiff and since the dissolution of the partnership took place on 27-3-1993 or in any case in the first or second week of april 1993, the institution of the last suit on 26-9-1996 is clearly barred, because, for a suit for account, article 5 of the limitation act applies which provides a period of limitation of three years and the time from which the period begins to run is the date of dissolution. ..... however, when questioned specifically in this regard, particularly with reference to the provisions of the indian partnership act and particularly section 7, which provides that, where no provision is made by a contract between the partners for the duration of their partnership, for the determination of their partnership, the partnership is a partnership at will, he has no answer. ..... it is therefore clear that since the partnership deed does not provide for the duration of partnership and since it also provides that the provisions of the partnership act will govern the agreement between the parties, it has to be held that it was a partnership of will. ..... so far as the duration of partnership is concerned, the deed of partnership is silent, but according to the counsel for the original defendant, it is a partnership at will by virtue of provisions of section 7 of the partnerships act. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1934)36BOMLR427
..... chelikani rama rao, in which a similar objection was taken in respect of the provisions of the madras forest act of 1882, and it was held that, when such a right of appeal is given to one of the ordinary courts of the country, the procedure, orders and decrees of that court will be governed by the ordinary rules of the civil procedure code.5. ..... it is sufficient to say that the appellant has failed to satisfy their lordships that the high court has come to a wrong conclusion, and it becomes unnecessary to consider the further contention of the respondent that the decision of the courts in the earlier proceedings forms res judicata on the question of the particular indebted ness in respect of which the present application is made.7. ..... their lordships will, therefore, humbly advise his majesty that the appeal should be dismissed, and that the decree of the high court dated january 18, 1932, should be affirmed, the appellant to pay the respondent her costs in this appeal. ..... the appellant is receiver of the estate of po thit and ma nyein e, his wife, who were adjudicated insolvents on january 11, 1929, and he appeals from a decree of the high court of judicature at rangoon, dated january 18, 1932, which reversed the order of the district court of henzada, dated march 30, 1931, and directed that the respondent be added in the schedule of debts as a creditor of the estate in respect of certain sums, amounting in all to rs. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom136; (1960)62BOMLR336
..... 9,368-2-3 on the ground that the defendant's paternal uncles managed his business, that the balances were struck every year at the time of diwali, that jainarayan and shrikrishan had authority to borrow money for the defendant, that shrikrishan and the defendant instructed the plaintiff to open a khata in the name of jainarayan narsingdas so as to include the business of the defendant, that on the 3rd february 1951 the defendant instructed the plaintiff to carry over the sum due namely rs. ..... when there is a question as to whether certain persons are members of a joint hindu family or not, it is not always necessary to adduce evidence merely of members of the joint hindu family the opinion of persons may also be relevant under section 50 of the evidence act which provides that when the court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship of any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant face. ..... these plaints relate to the years 1943 and 1944 and admittedly the three brothers shriram, satyanarayan and ratanlal were minors, having been born respectively in 1926, 1932 and 1938. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1956Bom618
..... become incumbent on thecreditor to make reasonable independent inquiryinto the credentials of the partners who professesto have acted as the agent of the firm and he cannot bind the firm by merely showing that he reliedon some representations of that partner whichrepresentations if not wholly suspect would at leastbe interested.that the partner who has made & endorsed the instrument is also a constituent of the firm does not in the present context relieve the receipient of the instrument of his duty to satisfy himself about the title of that partner to make or hold ..... but if all that can be said of an act is that it was convenient or that it facilitated the transaction of the business of the firm or that it was done because it was in the interest of the firm to contract with an individual partner, that is not sufficient to bind the firm in the absence of evidence of sanction by the other partners.the same principle applies and with the same certainty where a partner purporting to act on behalf of the firm draws a cheque in his own favour and then endorses it in favour of a third party to secure repayment of his own .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(4)BomCR186
..... godbole placed reliance on the judgment of division bench of the madras high court : air1963mad302 central united bank ltd. ..... the learned trial judge has referred to the provisions of the indian partnership act and since the conclusions of the learned trial judge are based on the interpretation of these provisions, it is necessary to refer to the same. 11. ..... similarly section 45 of the said act makes provision that notwithstanding me dissolution of a firm, the partners continue to be liable as such to third parties for any act done by any of them which would have been an act of the firm, if done before the dissolution, until public notice is given of the dissolution. ..... even otherwise the acknowledgment given by one of the partners was not sufficient to fasten the liability on the other partners in view of the provisions of section 20 of the limitation act. 8. ..... 9 as under : thus the law prior to the enacting of the indian partnership act was the same as in england. ..... sub-section (2) of section 32 makes a provision that a retiring partner may be discharged from the liability to a third party for acts of the firm done before his retirement by an agreement made by him with such third party and the partners of the reconstituted firm. ..... 2 is held to be liable this specific provision of indian limitation act absolves him of the liability and as such learned trial judge was in error in passing a decree against defendant no. 2. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1994(3)BomCR547
..... under section 40 of the partnership act, a firm can be dissolved with the consent of all the partners or in accordance with the contract between the partners, under section 43 a partnership at will can be dissolved by any partner giving notice in writing to all the other partners of his intention to dissolve the firm and upon such notice being given the firm gets dissolved as from the date mentioned in the notice as the date of dissolution and if no date is so mentioned as from the date of the communication of the notice, while section 44 contemplates dissolution of a firm by and ..... under orders of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(4)ALLMR525; 1998(4)BomCR881; (1998)3BOMLR543; 1999(1)MhLj112
..... on behalf of the petitioners it is contended as under :--(a) there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record as the respondents were not a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act as amended in the state of maharashtra and were thus barred under section 69 of the indian partnership act from meeting the claim. ..... the claim for extra amount on account of water charges was clearly in admissible being beyond the terms of the contract and hence the arbitral tribunal acted in excess of jurisdiction in awarding the said amount. ..... (c) on a reading of clause 3.2 with clause 4.4(b) of the general conditions of the contract the arbitrators acted without jurisdiction in awarding claims 5.6(a), 6(b), 7, 8 and 9. ..... hence the bar of section 69 of the partnership act would not apply even if it is assumed that on the relevant date the partnership was not registered. ..... ram narain and others, : air1977all352 the division bench of the allahabad high court was again considering section 69(3) of the indian partnership act. ..... the apex court held that these are other proceedings and would be maintainable in view of the exception carved out by sub-section (3) of section 69 of the partnership act. ..... the widow of the deceased partner moved under section 20 of the arbitration act. ..... it may be rioted that the proceedings arose on an application moved to the court under section 8(2) of the indian arbitration act. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2002Bom211; 2002(2)ALLMR769; 2002(3)BomCR752
..... this court has observed that the action on the part of the prohibition officer acting under the provisions of the bombay prohibition act while exercising the administrative powers can be examined by the authorities under section 137 by way of appeal and under section 138 in exercise of the powers of the revision by the state government, and therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred.13. ..... under section 146 of the bombay prohibition act, there is bar for a suit or proceeding against the government or against any prohibition police or other officers or against any person empowered to exercise his powers or perform function under this act for anything in good faith done or intended to be done under this act, but then that does not exclude the jurisdiction of the civil court for deciding the issue relating to dissolution of the partnership firm which fact is related to the grant of licence or deleting ..... the name of any partner after the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(2)ALLMR524; 1998(1)BomCR782
..... he also drew our attention to the decision of the madras high court in : air1983mad150 m/s. ..... parekh urged that admittedly on the date of the suit, the plaintiff firm was not registered under section 59 and, therefore, the suit could not have been instituted against the defendant in view of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act. mr. ..... section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, reads as follows:---'no suit to enforce a right arising for a contract shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the register of firms as partners in the firm.'6. in a.l.r. ..... the plaintiff applied for withdrawal of the notice of motion on the ground that the suit is not maintainable in view of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act. ..... in the light of the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions, it appears that the law is well settled that a firm not registered under section 59 suffers from the legal disability of enforcing a right arising from a contract by instituting a suit against a third party by operation of section 69(2) of the act. ..... the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 69(2) of the partnership act. ..... in other words, a partner of an erstwhile unregistered partnership firm cannot bring a suit to enforce a right arising out of a contract falling within the ambit of section 69 of the partnership act. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1957Bom111; (1957)59BOMLR209; ILR1958Bom8; (1957)IILLJ194Bom
..... the industrial court also observed that from the circumstance that the old company as well as the new company were carrying on the same business, the applicants could not be regarded as employees of the new company under the definition of 'employee' as given in the bombay industrial relations act, and inasmuch as the applicants had ceased to be employees of the old company they were not employees within the meaning of the bombay industrial relations act. ..... having regard to the fact that the sale-deed recited that the new company acquired the assets of the old company free from all debts and liabilities of the old company and the new company being registered as a separate undertaking under the industrial relations act, thecourt held that there was a complete hiatus between the old undertaking and the new undertaking and the new company could not be regarded as a successor of the old company. 3. ..... workers of sagar talkies, : (1954)iillj314mad (b), it was observed by the madras high court: 'it was settled law that where there is a transfer of a business of one management to another, the rights and obligations which existed as between the old management and their workers continue to exist, vis-a-vis, the new management after the date of the transfer. .....
Tag this Judgment!