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

2018 Supreme(Mad) 2588

J.NISHA BANU
S. Vel Aravind S/o M. Subramanian – Appellant
Versus
Radhakrishnan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. S. Deenadhayalan.
For the Respondent: Mr. T.A. Punithan.

JUDGMENT :

1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeal have been filed by the appellants challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 01.03.2017 made in I.A. Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of 2017 in Arb. O.P. No. 1 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thiruchirapalli.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The first appellant and the first respondent are the founder partners of the second respondent-Partnership Firm/Hospital, vide partnership deed dated 14.04.2008. As per the partnership deed, any partner either as new partner or in the place of an existing partner, cannot be admitted without the consent of the founder partners. After sometime, two partners had gone out of the partnership and therefore, a reconstitution deed came into existence on 28.02.2013. Subsequently, the second appellant was admitted into the partnership firm by way of reconstitution deed dated 01.04.2013. In the partnership firm, the first appellant and the first respondent are having 42.50% share each and the second appellant is having 15% share. As per the partnership deed, all the partners shall look after the day-to-day administration of the hospital jointly. The first appellant is a leading Nephrol




























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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top