1966 Supreme(Guj) 88
A.D.DESAI, P.N.BHAGWATI
KESHAVLAL LALLUBHAI PATEL – Appellant
Versus
PATEL BHAILAL NARANDAS – Respondent
Advocates Appeared: I.M.NANAVATI, J.M.SHAH
Judgement Key Points
- The main legal dispute in the appeal concerns the specific date on which the partnership was dissolved. (!)
- The partnership was established by a deed dated July 4, 1954, between the plaintiffs and the defendants under the name "National Construction Company." (!)
- Clause 6 of the partnership deed explicitly states that the duration of the partnership is not fixed, thereby classifying it as a "partnership at will." (!)
- Clause 7 of the partnership deed provides a mechanism for a partner to retire by giving written notice, specifying that retirement takes effect after pending construction works are completed. (!)
- The plaintiff issued a notice dated December 15, 1956, to dissolve the firm, which was received by the defendants, with the last receipt occurring on December 18, 1956. (!)
- Defendants Nos. 5 to 7 argued that the partnership was not "at will" but rather for a specific venture, contending that the partnership could not be dissolved until the pending construction work was finished. (!)
- The court analyzed Section 7 of the Partnership Act, which defines a partnership at will as one where no provision is made for the duration or determination of the partnership. (!)
- The court distinguished between the "retirement" of a partner (governed by Section 32) and the "dissolution" of the firm (governed by Section 39), ruling that retirement severs the relationship of the retiring partner but does not dissolve the firm's relationship among the continuing partners. (!)
- The court held that a provision for retirement does not constitute a provision for the "determination of their partnership" (i.e., all partners) required to exclude a partnership from being "at will" under Section 7. (!)
- The court rejected the argument that there was an implied agreement to continue the partnership until pending works were completed, noting that Clause 6's explicit declaration of "partnership at will" precludes such an implication. (!)
- Consequently, the court affirmed that the partnership was validly dissolved upon the receipt of the notice on December 18, 1956, upholding the trial court's preliminary decree. (!)
- The appeal filed by Defendants Nos. 5 to 7 was dismissed as it had no substance in the court's view. (!)
P. N. BHAGWATI, J.
( 1 ) THE short question that arises for determination in this appeal is as to the date of dissolution of a partnership constituted of the plaintiffs and the defendants. By a deed of partnership dated 4th July 1954 the plaintiffs and the defendants agreed to carry on business in partnership in the firm name of National Construction Company on the terms and conditions recorded in the partnership deed. The business of the partnership was stated in Clause 1 of the partnership deed to be construction of buildings roads dams canals and other structures in various parts of India and production and transport work in connection with the same. Clause 2 of the partnership deed provided that none of the partners should withdraw the amount of capital invested by him until all the construction works undertaken by the firm were completed. The partners were divided into three groups: the first group consisting of the plaintiff and defendant No. 8 the second group consisting of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and the third group consisting of defendants Nos. 4 to 7 and under Clause 5 of the partnership deed the management of the partner ship business was entrusted to three Managing Partn
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
