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

1987 Supreme(AP) 473

K.RAMASWAMY
NIDAMARTHY SATYANARAYANA MURTBY – Appellant
Versus
Mamidana Venkata Balakrishna Murthy – Respondent


K. RAMA SWAMY, J.

( 1 ) THE appeal of seven defendants against a preliminary decree ofdissolution of Minerva Talkies, Vizianagaram, a partnership firm (for short the firm ) of which they and the respondents-plaintiff are partners, rendition of accounts and payment of his 1/5th share granted by trial court raises a question whether it is "just and equitable" to dissolve the firm.

( 2 ) THE admitted facts are that on February 1, 1947, a vacant site anda dilapidated building were purchased and a cinema theatre was constructed thereon and from June 2, 1949, the firm started exhibiting cinematographs. Initially the respondent had l/6th share, but on his purchasing the share of another partner he augmented to 1/5th share thereaf and invested Rs. 35,000/ the appellants together have 4/5th share (the details of their respective shares are not necessary ). The partnership deed was executed on January 20, 1970, but due to change of partners another unregistered partnership deed Ex. B1 dated November 9, 1973 was executed. From its inception the 1st appellant was the managing partner, the rest including the respondent are the "sleeping partners". The 1st appellant is a qualified Sound and Radi


































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