shantilal k. patel
28 August 2012 at 00:57
I have two questions to ask.
1. There are four partners. A case is filed in Bombay High Court by a partner. The plaintiffs are firm and three partners and defendants are one partner and ex-employee.
Whether such a case can be filed? Here firm is plaintiff(Four Partners) and one of the defendants is a partner along with ex-employee. whether such a case can be filed? Is it legal? if yes why?
2.In the case of defamation, what should be
proved to get the compensation?
Generally how much time it takes to
get the judgement from the court? I am from Mumbai.
shanti Patel
Mobile No, 9892485457
Anonymous
21 October 2011 at 18:33
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") dated __________________
Between
M/s......... & Company, Chartered Accountants, a Partnership Firm, having its registered office at ...... hereinafter referred to as ‘N’.
AND
Shri ........ Chartered Accountant, residing at ....herenafter referred to as ‘S’.
Preamble :
1. S worked as an employee of N during the period from 1st August 1980 to 31st July, 1995. Subsequently, S made a claim for gratuity on N, which was disputed by N. Thereafter, on 26th August, 2005, S filed an application (No. .....) before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, at Mumbai, seeking payment of Gratuity. After several hearings It was mutually agreed to pay an amount of Rs.89,000/-to SKP, comprising of the principal amount of Rs. 53,450 and interest thereon, as against a consolidated claim of Rs.123,610 made by him. The amount of Rs.89,000/- was paid to S vide cheque no. 078735 dated 31st August, 2009, drawn on ............, for which a written acknowledgement was received from S on the same day, stating that the amount so paid was in full and final settlement of his dues. The said cheque was subsequently deposited by him and the amount realized.
2. However, immediately thereafter, S continued to demand the balance amount, which was declined by N.
3. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Hon’ble Labour Court, S had, in fact, started acquiring nominal holdings in some of the listed companies where N was the statutory auditor. He then proceeded to write letters to the Directors of these companies, in his capacity as a shareholder, asking them to remove N as the statutory auditors. He also appeared at the AGMs of some of the companies and reiterated his demand for removal of N as the statutory auditors.
4. The said act of S was causing incalculable harm to N’s status as one of the most respected firms in the Chartered Accountancy profession.
5. In order to avoid further damage being caused to its reputation arising out of S’s actions, sometime in early July, 2010, N approached S with an offer to pay him the balance amount as demanded by him, on a clear and specific condition that he would, forthwith, stop and refrain from making any allegations whatsoever against N in any forum and in any manner whatsoever, whether directly or indirectly. S agreed to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in this regard.
6. Vide letter dated July 7, 2010, S conveyed the balance amount being claimed by him towards gratuity as being Rs.42,695/- (Rupees Forty Two Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Five only).
7. In the meanwhile, the matter came up for discussion in the audit committee of one of the clients of N. Upon being told that N was in the possession of a court order settling the dispute, the Chairman of the audit committee of that client strongly advised N not to pay S any further amounts as demanded by him.
8. Accordingly, N did not proceed to finalise the MOU.
9. Upon realizing that his demand was not being entertained, S again started resorting to writing letters to various clients of N, asking for N to be replaced as the statutory auditors.
10. In order to protect its business interests and professional standing, N was left with no choice but to once again approach S with a proposal for settlement of his demands.
11. Accordingly, S was approached once again on 06th Sept. 2011 for reaching a settlement, pursuant to which he would hereafter refrain from acting in a manner that would cause any harm whatsoever to N’s stature and goodwill in the profession and in the corporate world. A revised demand for Rs.58,290/- was received from him vide his letter dated September 8, 2011.
12. Upon discussion with S, he agreed to revise the amount to Rs.48,700/-, as being the amount payable to him in full and final settlement of his demands.
13. N and S have now irrevocably agreed upon the following terms:
(i) N will, on signing of this MOU, pay SKP the said amount of Rs. Rs.48,700/- (Rupees Forty Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety only) by an account payee cheque drawn in his favour, in full and final settlement of S’s demand.
(ii) S agrees that upon receipt (and realization) of the cheque for Rs.48,700/-, he will have no demand of any nature whatsoever pending against N and its Partners and will not, hereafter, make any claim against N and its Partners for any additional amount whatsoever.
(iii) In consideration of N paying him the aforesaid sum of money, it is hereby agreed between N and S that:
(a) S will forthwith stop and refrain from writing any letters whatsoever, or causing to have any letters written by other people to any of N’s clients, both present and future, making any derogatory or uncharitable remarks against N or its Partners or demanding the removal of N as auditors of those Companies.
(b) S will also forthwith stop and refrain from indulging in any communication with N’s clients, both present and future, in any other manner whatsoever, whether directly or indirectly, that contains any reference to N in derogatory or defamatory terms.
(c) SKP will refrain from making derogatory remarks against N at any Annual General Meetings of any of NMR’s clients where S has acquired shares.
(d) N, on its part, will not initiate any legal action in any forum against SKP for the damage already caused by him to its reputation and image.
(e) In the event that S violates any of the clauses in this MOU, or reneges on the undertaking given by him in the foregoing paras, N shall not be bound by the undertaking given by it in sub-para (d) above, and shall become free to pursue legal action against S in any forum at the entire risk of S as to cost and consequences.
(iv) This act of N, of paying SKP the said amount of Rs. 48,700/-, as mutually agreed, is solely with a view to protect its reputation, goodwill and professional interests and should not be misconstrued as N’s acceptance of S’s claim before the Hon’ble Labour Court.
M/s. N.... & Co.
CA S....
Whether the above mention M.O.U. is valid in law? It restrains a person to exercise the rights of a shareholder which are given by the companies act. 1956.
________________________ _______________________
shantilal k. patel
12 October 2011 at 15:59
Legality of the M.O.U.
I was an employee of the firm. The partners of the firm refused to pay me gratuity on the
ground of change in the constitution of the firm.
I started writing letters in the capacity of a shareholders to the board of directors of the companies in which the firm in question acts as auditor to remove the firm as auditor.
Some companies have removed them. Fearing loss of reputation and professional work, the partner of the firm contacted me and prepared to pay gratuity if i enter in to M.O.U. In M.O.U., they want to incorporate terms by which the firm wants to prevent me from writing letters to the board or attend A.G.M. of the company and demand removal of the firm as auditor.
My question is: Whether the M.O.U. is valid ? This is because it is the liability of the firm to pay gratuity under payment of gratuity law. How M.O.U.put a condition for payment of such liability?
Please advise
shantilal k. patel
10 October 2011 at 17:33
What is M.O.U
What is the impotance of the same?
Why it is entered?
What are the consequences if there is a breach of the same?
s.k.patel
shantilal k. patel
10 October 2011 at 17:31
I was employee of a firm of chartered accountants who are statutory auditors of few public limited companies.I was not paid gratuity as per act. After filing a case before the asst.commissioner of labour, they paid me 3/4th amount
I am a shareholder of few public limited listed companies. I wrote letter to the Board of Directors of few companies in which this firm of chartered accountants act as auditor. On the basis of my letter the firm was removed as auditor in few companies. Fearing the removal in other companies, the firm approch me and agreed to pay me the balance 1/4 but wants me sighn an M.O.U. through which they want me stop writing letter or demand in A.G.M removal of such firm as auditor.
Whether such M.O.U is legally valid?
After signing M.O.U. if I write a letter to the Board for removing such firm as auditor or demand the removal in A.G.M., any legal action can be taken against me by the firm?
Please advise
s.k.patel
shantilal k. patel
09 September 2010 at 18:55
Dear friends,
What is F.I.R.
Why it is lodged?
s.k.patel
shantilal k. patel
17 January 2009 at 15:09
My question is whether a firm of Chartered Accountans is liable to pay
gratuity to an employee chartered accountant?
I have been told that there is a recent
supreme court jugement, according to it
an employee chartered accountant is not
entilted to GRAUITY.
How to get\read such jugement?
s.k.patel
shantilal k. patel
13 October 2008 at 17:43
I had purchased National Savings Certificates form the post office.
I lost the same.I approad the post office
and completed the formalities for duplicate certificates.
For a long time of 2 years they kept me
waiting. Now they say that you have already encashed the same so we can not do anything.In fact I have not encashed the same.
What should I do? any remedy under Right to Information Act availabele? if yes to whom to write?
s.k.patel
shantilal k. patel
04 October 2008 at 15:57
In a grauity case, I was cross examined by the lawyer of my ex-employee. Now my
lawyer is cross examining the accountant
of the employer.
Why cross examination is necesary? How
it helps? Importance of the same in the
decision etc.
I shall be grateful if any penal lawyer
guide me on the same
s.k.patel
Member Strength 9,47,724 and growing..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Defamation
I have three Questions:
1. what is the difference between Motion to the suit and suit?
2.To succeed in defamation suit,what is to be proved?
3.How to find out past decided cases on Defamation?
s.k.patel
9892485457
Mumbai