SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(Mad) 212

High Court of Judicature at Madras
The Honourable Mr. Justice S.M. Abdul Wahab
A. Nagappan and 8 others
Versus
M/s. Mc. Adams Chemicals Manufacturing Co., represented by its Managing Partner R. Balagangadharan and 5 others
C.R.P. Nos. 3265 of 1996 to 3267 of 1996
Decided On : 19-02-1998

Advocates:
M/s. Mohan Parasaran Advocate for Petitioners. Mr.T.V. Ramanujan, Senior counsel for Mr.T.V. Krishnamachari for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Mr.G. Subramaniam Senior counsel for Mr. P. Viswanatha Kakkan for Respondent No.6.

After service of summons issued by the court for dissolution, appointment of receiver is just and convenient.

Headnote:Partnership Act, 1932-Sections 43 and 44-Dissolution of partnership at will-Majority of partners filed suit for dissolution of partnership at will and appointment of Receiver-Question regarding service of notice raised-Held, summons issued by court served on the respondents and as such notice of dissolution to be treated as served-As such appointment of receiver just.

Judgment :

1. C.R.P.No.3265 of 1996 is against the judgment dated 111. 1996 in C.M.A.No.100 of 1996 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, modifying and confirming the order dated 19. 1996 in I.A.No. 691 of 1996 in O.S.No.499 of 1996, granting injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with the operation of the bank accounts and carrying on the business of the partnership. Though, injunction was granted as prayed for by the trial Court, the injunction was modified by the lower appellate Court to the extent that the Managing Partner should convene the meeting of the partners once in a month and submit the accounts and giving opportunity to the petitioners to move the Court for appointment of a Receiver in case they were able to establish that there was necessity for doing so.

2. C.R.P.No.3266 of 1966 is against the very same common order dated 111. 1996 in C.M.A.No.101 of 1996 etc., on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, confirming the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, dated 19. 1996 in I.A.No.693 of 1996 in O.S.No.505 of 1996, dismissing the application for appointment of a receiver to take charge of the partnership business and to sell the assets of the same.

3. C.R.P.No. 3267 of 1996 is against the judgment dated 111. 1996 in I.A.No.154 of 1996 in C.M.A.No.100 of 1996, on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, dismissing the said application for receiving additional evidence in the appeal.

4. All the three applications were rejected by a common order of the III Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The petitioners in all the three civil revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.505 of 1996, which has been filed for dissolution of the partnership firm known as M/s.Mc.Adams Chemicals Manufacturing Company and for accounts. The above said plaintiffs are defendants in O.S.No.499 of 1996. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.505 of 1996 have filed I.A.No.693 of 1996 for appointment of a receiver. They are the appellants in C.M.A.Nos.100 and 101 of 1996. The suit O.S.No.499 of 1996 has been filed for declaration that the removal of the second plaintiff from his position as Managing Partner of the firm M/s.Mc.Adams Chemicals Manufacturing Company and the purported with drawl of power of the second plaintiff for operating the bank accounts of the firm as void and illegal. The plaintiffs 2 to 5 in O.S.No.499 of 1996 and one Navaneetham are the defendants in O.S.No.505 of 1996.

5. The learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, disposed of the I.A.No.691 of 1996 in O.S.No.499 of 1996; I.A.No.693 of 1996 in O.S.No.505 of 1996 and another application I.A.No.692 of 1996 in O.S.No.505 of 1996 by a common order dated 19. 1996. I.A.No.692 of 1996 was for appointment of a Commissioner to take an inventory of the goods in the business and to sell the properties of the business. The said application was also filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.505 of 1996.

6. The main controversy in all the three civil revision petitions relate to the continuance of the business by the partnership firm viz., M/s.Mc.Adams Chemicals Manufacturing Company. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.505 of 1996 are nine out of fourteen partners in the said firm. While the plaintiffs in O.S.No.499 of 1996 are the four partners of the said firm, one partner, who has not joined with plaintiffs in O.S.No. 505 of 1996 is the first defendant in O.S.No.499 of 1996. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.505 of 1996 prayed for discontinuing the business while the plaintiffs in O.S.No.499 of 1996 prayed for continuing the business.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.Mohan Parasaran, contended that the firm is a partnership at will, when serious disputes have arisen among the partners and majority of the partners decided to dissolve the firm, there is an automatic dissolution when the intention of the partners are communicated to the other partners. In this case, there is















































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top