IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANGEETA K. VISHEN, NIRAL R.MEHTA
Krishnakunvarba Alias Krishnadevi W/o Kiritsinh Jadeja – Appellant
Versus
Prithvi Development Corporation – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.
1. First Appeal no.719 of 2024 is filed challenging the judgment dated 24.01.2024 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned judgment”) whereby, Special Civil Suit no.21 of 2020 (hereinafter referred to as “the suit”) has been rejected. In subsequently filed First Appeal no.3375 of 2024, the challenge is to the order dated 29.09.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order”) passed below application, Exh.52 insofar as the prayer of the plaintiff, seeking direction to the defendants to tender a duly audited accounts by the registered Chartered Accountant, has been refused. For the sake of convenience, parties to the suit, are referred to as per their original status.
2. Mr Percy Kavina, learned Senior Counsel with Mr Jamshed Kavina, learned advocate for the plaintiff submitted that the application, Exh.52, contained twofold prayers; firstly, passing of a preliminary decree, declaring the proportionate shares of the parties and to fix a date on which the partnership shall stand dissolved or deemed to have been dissolved; and secondly, direction to the defendant nos.1 and 5 to tender in Court, duly audited accounts by the Chartered Accountant alon
Upper India Cable Co. And Ors. vs Bal Kishan
Madhavji Khatau Katira and Anr. vs Trikamdas Narandas Tanna
Yakub Ibrahim v. A. Gulamabbas
Union of India vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.
Kiran Devi vs. The Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board
Union of India vs. Reliance Industries Limited
Failure to provide evidence for notification and unauthorized property sales by partners led to the rejection of the dissolution suit; jurisdiction determined by prior judicial orders must be respect....
A suit for specific performance cannot be maintained by partners of a dissolved firm; and claims are barred under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act and the Limitation Act.
A suit for accounts of a dissolved partnership and a share in the immovable properties of the partnership is barred by limitation under Article 106 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
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.
Partners are entitled to transparent bookkeeping; discrepancies in financial accounts justify judicial intervention for the rendition of accounts.
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....
Ownership of property alleged as partnership assets must be proven, and previous suits on the same cause of action bar subsequent suits under Order II Rule 2 CPC.
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....
The partnership and related sale deeds were deemed void due to lack of consideration, reaffirming the arbitrability of disputes arising from contractual agreements between partners.
(1) Upon the death of any partner the partnership shall not be automatically dissolved but the surviving partners may admit the legal representative of the deceased unto the partnership by mutual con....
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.