NUPUR BHATI
Dev Prakash S/o. Heera Lal Soni – Appellant
Versus
Indra D/o. Late Prabhu Dayal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Nupur Bhati, J.
1. These misc. appeals are filed by the appellants/defendants under Order 43 Rule 1(s), Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter as ‘CPC’) against the orders dated 25.04.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 3, Bikaner (hereinafter as ‘the trial court’) in Civil Misc. Case No.(s) 12/2015 and 13/2015 respectively, whereby the learned trial court has allowed applications filed by the respondent no. 1 to 5 under Order 39 rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC and Order 40 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC respectively.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 10.02.1995 the partnership firm- M/s Chandratan Heeralal, Luharon ka Muhalla, Naya Kuan, Bikaner(hereinafter as ‘the firm’) was created between Late Prabhu Dayal (hereinafter as ‘deceased partner’)and Mr. Dev Prakash (hereinafter as ‘Appellant no. 1’) and a partnership deed was executed between them on 15.08.1995 and they both had equal partnership in the properties of the firm. The firm was registered with Registrar of firms and a license under The Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act,1958 was also taken. The immovable property(at Luharon ka Muhalla, Naya Kuan
C.D. Grover and Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar AIR 1997 Raj 281
Dhokal Singh v Ridhmal 1955 0 RLW (Raj) 346
Gumanlal v Shambulal 1955 0 RLW (Raj) 20
Jai Narayan Misra Vs. Hashmathunnisa Begum AIR 2002 AP 389
Mohd. Laiquiddin and Ors. Vs. Kamala Devi Misra (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 407
Nihalchand L. Jai Narain and Ors. Vs. Ram Niwas Munna Lal and Ors. AIR 1968 P&H 523
Rajendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Brijendra Kumar Sharma and Ors. AIR 1994 All 62
Sheonarian Jaiswal v Shree Kripa Shankar Jaiswal 1972 0 AIR(Pat) 75
Smt. Jayamma v. Adhyaksha, Zilla Panchayat
Tilak Chand Jain Vs. Darshan Lal Jain and Ors. AIR 1985 J&K 50
The court established that maintaining status quo is preferable to appointing a receiver in partnership disputes, emphasizing the need for clear rights and balance of convenience.
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.
Impartiality in appointing a receiver is crucial; a managing partner cannot be appointed as a receiver of a dissolved partnership amid trust issues and financial misappropriation allegations.
Appointment of a receiver requires a judicious exercise of discretion; failure to adhere to procedural fairness resulted in setting aside the trial court's order.
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....
Point of law: Arbitration - Arbitral Award - Interference by Court - Scope of powers of Appellate Court under Section 37 of Arbitration Act are more limited than limited powers of the Court hearing t....
(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....
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.
Heirs of a deceased partner in an unregistered partnership cannot substitute in proceedings as the partnership dissolves upon the partner's death unless explicitly allowed by the partnership deed.
Properties purchased with partnership funds are owned by the partnership, necessitating a full trial to resolve ownership disputes.
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.