Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Arun Bhansali, J.
Balkishan - Appellant
Versus
Budh Singh - Respondent
Civil Second Appeal No. 222 of 2018, 4 of 2019, 6 of 2019
Decided on : 05-04-2021
partnership deed - dealership agreement - Partnership Act, 1932, Section 68 - The court found that the plaintiffs were partners of the firm M/s. Jaman Singh Pabu Singh based on numerous documents filed and exhibited. The plea raised by the appellants seeking to claim the suit as barred by limitation and other issues sought to be raised do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The submission made by BPCL regarding its insistence to continue with the partners who have signed the dealership agreement dehors the status of the partnership, which since 1976 had the plaintiffs as partners, cannot be countenanced. The appellant BPCL has already implemented the judgment & decree passed by the trial court.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed by the plaintiffs Budh Singh and Kan Singh against Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ('BPCL') and its Senior Divisional Manager for mandatory injunction and for making changes in the dealership record. The dispute arose when BPCL indicated only two partners of the firm in its dealership agreement, leading to a police case and a compromise executed between the partners. The plaintiffs sought to have their names recorded as partners of the firm M/s. Jaman Singh Pabu Singh.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to have their names indicated in the dealership agreement, and the first appellate court upheld this decision. The courts also found that the suit was within limitation and that the plaintiffs were working throughout as partners of the firm. The appeals filed against these findings were dismissed by the court.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement of the plaintiffs to have their names indicated in the dealership agreement, the bar of limitation, and the jurisdiction of the civil court to grant such a direction to BPCL.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Partnership Act, 1932, Section 68, which provides that a certified copy of an entry relating to a firm in the Register of Firms may be produced in proof of the fact of registration of such firm and of the contents of any statements, intimation, or notice recorded or noted therein. The court found that the plea raised by the appellants seeking to claim the suit as barred by limitation and other issues sought to be raised did not give rise to any substantial question of law.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT
Arun Bhansali, J. - These appeals are directed against the judgment & decree dated 4/10/2018 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.2, Jodhpur (Metro), whereby, the appeals filed by the appellants-defendants against the judgment and decree dated 6/5/2014 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No. 7, Jodhpur (Metro) have been dismissed.
2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs Budh Singh and Kan Singh against Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ('BPCL') and its Senior Divisional Manager for mandatory injunction and for making changes in the dealership record.
3. It was inter alia indicated in the suit that plaintiffs and Bal Kishan & Ganpat Singh were partners in the firm Jaman Singh Pabu Singh; the firm was created in 1957, which at the relevant time was dealer of M/s Burma Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Company of India Limited; the firm established a petrol pump at Sumerpur; on 4/11/1975 a fresh partnership deed was executed and the same was registered on 7/5/1976 with the Registrar of Firms, Jaipur; at the relevant time there were six partners i.e. Pabu Singh, Bal Kishan, Budh Singh, Kunney Singh, Ganpat Singh and Kan Singh. On 27/7/1976, Pabu Singh died and in his place his wife Smt. Ganga Devi was inducted as partner. Whereafter, another partner Kunney Singh died on 3/8/1983 and Smt. Ganga Devi took retirement. Since 1983 there were only four partners. It was alleged that BPCL, which is successor of M/s Burma Shell, in its dealership agreement indicated only Bal Kishan and Ganpat Singh as partners of the firm Jaman Singh Pabu Singh and left the names of Budh Singh & Kan Singh, however, all the four partners are operating the petrol pump at Sumerpur.
4. It was submitted that only on account of names of two partners having been indicated in the dealership agreement, there were disputes arising between the partners as to whether the firm had four partners or two partners, which lead to police case between the partners and their family members on 27/10/1994, and a compromise dated 28/10/1994 was executed between the four partners, whereby, the partners agreed that all the four partners were entitled to operate petrol pump, BPCL also accepted the same in its letter dated 1/11/1994.
5. Submissions were also made that on behalf of the firm, the plaintiffs wrote many letters to the company for indicating their names also for avoiding any future dispute, however, needful was not done. It was indicated that the cause of action arose on 17/10/1994 when the dispute arose between the partners for operating the petrol pump. It was prayed that defendants BPCL & its officer be directed to record the names of Budh Singh and Kan Singh as partners of the firm M/s. Jaman Singh Pabu Singh.
6. It may be noticed here that during the pendency of the suit, Bal Kishan and Ganpat Singh were impleaded as parties to the suit and the plaint was amended.
7. The defendants, BPCL and its officer filed written statement to the amended plaint and denied the averments made in the plaint and indicated that the dealership agreement was with two partners i.e. Bal Kishan and Ganpat Singh. The petrol pump was operated by Bal Kishan and Ganpat Singh and not by Budh Singh and Kan Singh. The company was not bound by any compromise between the parties. Averments made by the plaintiffs were against the law and no relief can be sought from the company. No cause of action has arisen.
8. Replication was filed by the plaintiffs further clarifying the averments made in the plaint and seeking that the suit be decreed.
9. Written statement was filed by Bal Kishan inter alia claiming that with the death of Kunney Singh and retirement of Smt. Ganga Devi, the existing firm was annulled and a new firm through partnership deed dated 16/8/1983 with the same name M/s. Jaman Singh Pabu Singh was formed in which partners were Budh Singh, Kan Singh, Bal Kishan & Ganpat Singh. As the new firm was not registered, the suit was not maintainable and as the BPCL entered dealership agr
AI
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
