M/S.Ramar Coir Industries vs Dhana Natarajan
Same is
the case in Abbashbhai K.Golwala Vs. R.G.Shah and Others reported in
AIR 1988 Bom 187.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (1.12 seconds)Documents citing
Abbashbhai K. Golwala vs R.G. Shah And Ors. on 16 October, 1987
M/S.Ramar Coir Industries vs Dhana Natarajan
Same is
31/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.225 of 2017
the case in Abbashbhai K.Golwala Vs. R.G.Shah and Others reported in
AIR 1988 Bom 187.
Suresh Raithatha vs Bharti Navnit Raithatha on 11 March, 2025
(f) The judgment of Bombay High Court in case of Abbashbhai K.
Golwala vs. R. G. Shah & Ors. 13
Suresh Raithatha vs Bharti Navnit Raithatha on 11 March, 2025
(f) The judgment of Bombay High Court in case of Abbashbhai K.
Golwala vs. R. G. Shah & Ors. 13
Suresh Raithatha vs Bharti Navnit Raithatha on 11 March, 2025
(f) The judgment of Bombay High Court in case of Abbashbhai K.
Golwala vs. R. G. Shah & Ors. 13
Uttam S/O Shamlal Jaiswal vs The State Of Maharashtra & Others on 6 May, 1997
29. Shri Dhorde also has relied on the decision , in the matter of Abbashbhai K. Golwala v. R.G. Shah and others, which also deals with the provisions of sections 41, 42, 43 and 44 of the Partnership Act.
Rosy Agrawal And Anr vs M/S Kangaroo Advisors And Ors on 30 July, 2025
26. I shall now refer to Abbashbhai K. Golwala Vs. R.G. Shah
& Ors. AIR 1988 BOMBAY 187 wherein it has been held as follows:
Suresh Raithatha vs Bharti Navnit Raithatha on 11 March, 2025
(f) The judgment of Bombay High Court in case of Abbashbhai K.
Golwala vs. R. G. Shah & Ors. 13
Siel Ltd. vs Prime Industries Ltd. on 15 September, 2016
Undoubtedly, this should not be done where the words in
the agreement are intended to express an intention to the
contrary. We find that in fact, the General Clause Act,
1897, has been applied by the Bombay High Court in the
case of Abbashbhai K. Golwala vs. R. G. Shah & Ors. - AIR
1988 Bombay 187, whereby the question as to whether the
phrase “remaining partners” include “a remaining partner”
arise. It was held that the principle underlying under
section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, would apply
in interpreting the terms of the Partnership Deed and the
Court observed as follows:
Hukumchand Bhaulal Patani vs Dhanlal Premraj Kale on 21 January, 2010
So, interpretation was in the light of particular
partnership deed and its terms and conditions. It is
observed in paragraph 15 in the case of Abbashbhai
(supra):
1