SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Bom) 1051

J.H.BHATIA
SADASHIV PANDURANG CHAVAN – Appellant
Versus
RAMAKANT MAHADEO MANERKAR – Respondent


Advocates:
C.G.Gavnekar, SUREL S.SHAH

( 1 ) APPEAL is admitted on following substantial question of law:

"whether the First Appellate Court was right in allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for recovery of amount on the basis of an agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, who were partners in a firm was not tenable under the law in view of section 69 (2) (a) as applicable to the State of Maharashtra ?"

( 2 ) WITH consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing immediately. Perused the judgments of both the Courts below as well as the relevant oral and documentary evidence.

( 3 ) TO state in brief, it is the case of the plaintiff/appellant that the defendant/respondent was already carrying on business as proprietor in the name and style of 'manerkar Traders' at C. S. No. 1259, "c" Ward, Laxmipuri, kolhapur. There were cordial relations between the plaintiff and the defendant. In January, 1996, the defendant offered to admit the plaintiff as a partner in his business and this offer was accepted. As per the agreement, plaintiff paid some amounts to the defendant towards the capital in the business.



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top