IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J.
Chalimeda Lakshmi Narasimha Rao - Appellant
v.
Chennadi Sudhakar Rao and others – Respondent
Election Petition NO.4 of 2007
Decided on 11-2-2009.
1993 Supp. (2) SCC 46; (2002) 8 SCC 467; E.P. Nos.1 and 3 of 2004 dated 30-08-2007 - Relied on.
(b) Partnership Act, 1932 - Section 32 (2) - Retirement of a partner - Liability of retiring partner to third parties would sand discharged only on an agreement between retiring partner, third party and partners of reconstituted firm.
(c) Contract Act, 1872 - Section 62 - Novation of contract - Substitution of old contract with new contract - Parties must be ad idem to the terms and conditions - Terms of contract cannot be modified without notice to the other party.
(d) Contract Act, 1872 - Section 56 - Doctrine of frustration - Comes into play where performance of a contract becomes impossible without any fault on either side.
Election to the 20-Karimnagar Local Authorities Constituency, for the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council, was held on 17-03-2007. The petitioner, first respondent and the second respondent contested the election. While the petitioner contested as a candidate of the Indian National Congress, the first respondent contested as a candidate of the Telugu Desam Party. The first respondent was declared to be the returned candidate. This petition is filed to declare the first respondent's election, as a returned candidate for the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council from 20-Karimnagr Local Authorities Constituency, as void and illegal on the ground that he suffered disqualification under Section 9-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short - 'the Act').
Pleadings:
2. A notification was issued, for conducting elections to the 20-Karimnagar Local Authorities Constituency, on 15-2-2007. The last date for filing nominations was 22-02-2007. The nominations filed were scrutinized on 23-02-2007. The last date for withdrawal of nominations was 26-02-2007 and the date of polling was 17-03-2007.
3. The first respondent was hitherto the managing partner of M/s. Marthanda Rao and Company, a registered partnership firm with five partners. The partnership deed, of the said firm, dated 02-04-2003 was registered with the Registrar of Firms and a certificate of Registration was issued on 03-05-2003. On the death of Sri Marthanda Rao, the partnership firm was reconstituted and a deed of the reconstituted partnership firm dated 13-12-2003 was registered. The first respondent was also the managing partner of the reconstituted firm. M/s. Marthanda Rao and Company obtained registration as special class contractors, vide proceedings of the Engineer in Chief (Administration Wing), Irrigation and CAD Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, dated 06-01-2004, wherein the first respondent was shown as the managing partner of the firm. The registration, as special class contractors, was valid till 04-11-2008. M/s. Marthanda Rao and Company, represented by the first respondent as its managing partner, entered into a joint venture agreement dated 08-12-2004 with M/s. Prathiba Construction Engineers and Contractors, Kolhapur. The joint venture was awarded the contract for executing package Nos.106 and 107 of the Nettampad Lift Irrigation Scheme under the Executive Engineer, PJP Division of the Irrigation Department of the Government of A.P. The said contracts subsisted on the date on which the first respondent filed his nomination for election to the 20-Karimnagar Local Authorities Constituency.
4. The first respondent claimed to have addressed letter dated 01-09-2006, to all the remaining partners of M/s. Marthanda Rao and Company, informing them of his intention to withdraw from the partnership due to personal reasons and that the said letter was acknowledged by all the other partners. The first respondent also claimed that a deed of retirement cum reconstitution of the partnership firm dated 20-02-2007 was executed whereby he retired from the partnership and ceased to be its managing partner with effect from 21-02-2007. The first respondent's family, however, continued to remain members of the partnership with a share of 66%. The change in constitution of the partnership firm, with effect from 21-02-2007, was intimated to the Registrar of Firms on 24-02-2007. However, the first respondent's retirement from the partnership was not intimated to the Government and the contracts between the partnership firm and the Government continued to subsist even after the first respondent filed his nomination.
5. The petitioner, on coming to know that the first respondent was actively involved with M/s. Marthanda Rao and Company which had entered into, and was in the process of executing, civil contracts with the Government of Andhra Pradesh and its instrumentalities and that, on the date of nomination, the contracts between M/s. Marthanda Rao and Company
Syndicate Bank v. R.S.R. Engg. Works: (2003) 6 SCC 265 = 2003 (4) ALT 29.1 (ONSC).
Konappa Rudrappa Nadgauda v. Vishwanath Reddy: AIR 1969 SC 447 (Para 13)
State of Punjab v. M/s. Jullundur Vegetables Syndicate: AIR 1966 SC 1295. (Para 13)
Dena Bank v. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh and Co.: (2000) 5 SCC 694. (Para 13)
Ranjeet Singh v. Harmohinder Singh Pradhan: (1999) 4 SCC 517. (Para 14)
Shrikant v. Vasantrao: 2006 (2) ALT 44 (SC) = 2006 (1) SCJ 789 = (2006) 2 SCC 682. (Para 14)
M/s. Rajasthan Trading Co. v. Registrar of Firms: AIR 1975 A.P. 232 (D.B.) (Para 14)
Polymat India (P) Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.: (2005) 9 SCC 174. (Para 23)
Lata Construction v. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah (Or): (2000) 1 SCC 586. (Para 24)
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.