The main legal principle established is that a partnership is a contract and cannot be unilaterally continued after the death of a partner, despite any clauses in the partnership deed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned A.G.P. for respondents No.1 to 4 and the learned counsel for respondent No.5.

2. It is a case of partnership liquor license. The father of the petitioner and grandfather of respondent No.5 had obtained a joint retail country liquor permit on 21.07.1984. They had a written partnership. During the lifetime of Nivrutti, one of his sons, Kashinath, had applied to the authority to admit him as a partner in place of his father Nivrutti. The application remained undecided. In the meantime, Nivrutti died. The father of the petitioner had no knowledge about the application of Kashinath. He was not the partner as per the partnership deed. The said application remained pending, and it was allowed on 25.09.1990. Then, the petitioner's father/Namdeo renewed the permit in his name. Namdeo had filed a suit against the legal heirs of Nivrutti including Kashinath. However, he withdrew the suit. Thereafter, the legal heirs of Namdeo had filed Regular Civil Suit No.59 of 1992. The said suit was decreed. The first appellate Court recorded the findings that it was proved that the partnership dissolved automatically after the death of Nivrutti Shinde. Finally, the first appellate Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance. Against the judgment of the first Appellate Court, the legal heirs of Namdeo had preferred a second appeal, which was dismissed in limine. Against the order of dismissal of the second appeal, they preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.24873-24874/2004 before the Honourable Supreme Court. It was also dismissed by order dated 13.12.2004.

3. Thereafter, a second round of litigation was opened. By order dated 30.03.2005, respondent No.4, the Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise Department, Osmanabad, intimated to the legal heirs of Namdeo that there was a dispute about the partnership. Hence, the permit will not be renewed until the next order is passed. The legal heirs of Namdeo assailed that order in an appeal before respondent No.2, the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Maharashtra State, Mumbai. It was registered as Appeal No.129 of 2005. The appellate authority observed that "in this case, a civil matter had been admitted in the Supreme Court, and the outcome would be binding on both parties. Therefore, the appeal is allowed, and the Collector is directed to renew the permit till the final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which will apply to all contesting parties. The legal heirs of Namdeo assailed that order before the Hon'ble Minister. The Hon'ble Minister interfering with the findings of the civil suit has quashed and set aside the orders of Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise Department, Osmanabad, dated 30.03.2005 and the first appellate authority dated 15.04.2005 and directed to issue the permit in the name of legal heirs of deceased Nivrutti Bapurao Shinde and Namdeo Raibhan Chonde, subject to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a simple issue: soon after the death of one of the partners, the partnership is dissolved in view of Section 42(c) of the Partnership Act, 1932. He argued that the effect would be the same, whatever the clauses are in the partnership deed. A partnership is a creation of a contract. No one could be forced to admit a third person as a partner. After the death of Nivrutti, the permit was issued in the name of Namdeo, and after his death, his legal heirs inherited the right to get the permit in the name of any of his legal heirs by consent.

5. To bolster his arguments, he relied on the case of Mohd. Laiquiddin and Another Versus Kamala Devi Mishra (Dead) by Lrs. And Others, 2010(2) All.M.R. 490. Further, he relied on the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur and Bandara Versus Seth Govindram Sugar Mills, 1966 AIR (SC) 24. He also relied on the case of Khtahema Fibres Ltd. Versus