Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BIREN VAISHNAV, J.
Dhanesh Bhadarmal Jain – Petitioner
Versus
Registrar of Firm – Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 22223 of 2022
Decided On : 15-12-2022
Partnership Firm - Dissolution - Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - Section 42, Section 58, Section 59, Section 63 - The court discussed the dissolution of the partnership firm M/s. Samkit Infracon under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and the reconstitution of the firm in light of the deed of change in partnership. The key legal provisions discussed were Section 42(c) on dissolution of a firm, Section 58 on application for registration, Section 59 on registration, and Section 63 on recording of changes in and dissolution of a firm.
Fact of the Case:
The petition challenged the order declaring the partnership firm M/s. Samkit Infracon as dissolved and recorded the status of the firm as 'dissolved' in the Registrar of Firms. The partnership firm was registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and was amended with the induction of new partners. A complaint was filed before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, and litigations were filed by the respondent No. 2. The petitioners sought reconstitution of the firm after the death of a partner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the partnership firm was dissolved by operation of law upon the death of one of the partners, and the reconstitution of the firm under Section 63 of the Act could not be done as there was no partnership for a third party to be inducted. The court confirmed the order declaring the partnership firm as dissolved.
Issues: The issues involved the dissolution of the partnership firm M/s. Samkit Infracon under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and the reconstitution of the firm in light of the deed of change in partnership. The court also considered the locus of the respondent No. 2 to approach the Registrar of Firms.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the partnership firm was dissolved by operation of law upon the death of one of the partners, and the reconstitution of the firm under Section 63 of the Act could not be done as there was no partnership for a third party to be inducted. The court also found that the respondent No. 2 had locus to approach the Registrar of Firms.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, confirmed the order declaring the partnership firm as dissolved, and discharged the rule. The interim relief granted earlier was vacated. No order as to costs was made.
JUDGMENT :
BIREN VAISHNAV, J.
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader as well as learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respective respondents.
2. Heard Mr. Percy Kavina, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vishal J. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Paritosh Gupta, learned advocate for the respondents.
3. This petition is taken up for hearing in light of the request made by the Division Bench vide order dated 01.12.2022 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1472 of 2022.
4. The petition challenges the order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the Registrar of Firms, Ahmedabad by which the Registrar has passed an order declaring the partnership firm that is M/s. Samkit Infracon of the petitioners as dissolved and further the status of the firm as “dissolved” has been recorded in the Registrar of Firms in Form “G.”
5. The facts in brief are as under:
4.2. M/s. Madhav Associates, the respondent No. 2 had booked/purchased commercial offices Nos.601 to 604 in the project of which the petitioners were promoters. A sale deed was executed and according to the respondent No. 2 since though substantial payments were made it was the case of the respondent No. 2 that the petitioners’ partnership firm M/s. Samkit Infracon was not enforcing the deed.
4.3. A complaint was filed before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority “for short ‘the RERA’) with prayers including seeking a declaration that the respondent No. 2 be declared as an allottee. In the complaint so filed, the petitioners had filed preliminary objections. Since the authority did not decide the preliminary issue, petition was filed before this Court which was disposed of on 08.09.2022. A litigation was also filed at the hands of respondent No. 2 in Special Civil Application No. 17281 of 2021 with a relief to cancel the registration certificate.
4.4. In a petition filed namely; SCA No. 13610 of 2022, the respondent No. 2 obtained directions from the Court by an order dated 27.07.2022 that the representation made by it to the respondent No. 1 be decided. In accordance with the direction so issued by the impugned order, the partnership firm M/s. Samkit Infracon of which the petitioners are partners has been treated as dissolved.
6. Mr. Percy Kavina, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vishal J. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioners would make the following submissions:
5.2. The respondent No. 2 had initiated multiple litigations against the partnership firm firstly in the form of complaint before RERA, then by filing of Special Civil Application challenging the petitioners’ f
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dissolution of a partnership firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and the reconstitution of the firm are governed by specific prov....
Important PointChanges in the constitution of a firm does not affect the registration once made but information about changes have to be given and failure to comply attracts penalties u/s 69-A of the....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of mutual agreement for partnership dissolution and the significance of partnership deeds in determining the intention of the pa....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dissolution of a partnership firm entitles a partner to seek settlement of accounts and interim reliefs under Section 9 of the Arbitration....
The court held that a partner's possession of dissolved firm property does not create ownership rights against co-owners, and claims of adverse possession are not maintainable.
The death of a partner in a partnership firm does not cause abatement of appeals against the firm under Order XXX of the Code of Civil Procedure.
A partner can dissolve an at-will partnership through a written notice, which constitutes sufficient action for dissolution, regardless of the firm's registration status.
A suit filed by a dissolved partnership firm is not maintainable under Sec. 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932, and the decree should be restricted to the area covered by the original tenancy agreement.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is not maintainable and is inherently defective and no....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
