Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R.Swaminathan
Kannappan Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi – Respondent
ORDER :
G.R. Swaminathan, J.
The petitioner Thiru.Kannappan, son of the fourth and fifth respondents established a sole proprietary concern in the name and style of “Kannappan Enterprises” and entered into a dealership agreement dated 21.10.2005 with Reliance Industries Ltd for a period of twenty years, ie., upto 21.10.2025 to carry on the business of a petroleum retail outlet. In December 2017, Kannappan Enterprises was converted into a partnership firm. The parents, namely, R4 and R5 were inducted as partners. A new dealership agreement dated 01.04.2018 was entered. According to the petitioner, the parents retired from the firm after receiving a sum of Rs.33.00 lakhs towards full and final settlement. They entered a memorandum of understanding dated 26.04.2021. Thereafter, the firm was reconstituted and two new partners were inducted.
2. Disputes arose subsequently between the petitioner on the one hand and the parents on the other. The third respondent M/s.Reliance BP Mobility Limited which was supplying petroleum products stopped their supply after March 2022 to the petitioner firm. The third respondent took the stand that their prior consent was not taken before reconstitution of
Writ petitions against private entities like Reliance Industries Limited are not maintainable; parties must resolve disputes through proper legal channels.
The rejection of a partnership reconstitution application based on penalty demands is arbitrary and contrary to the Indian Partnership Act and applicable guidelines.
The court affirmed that while reconstituting a partnership firm, individual parties' rights remain subject to pending civil suits and that interim orders do not decide those rights.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Partnership Act, 1932, Section 68, which provides conclusive proof of the fact stated in the Register of ....
The words 'Arbitral Tribunal' in Section 9(3) of Act have to take colour from all said provisions and thus have to be interpreted as Arbitral Tribunal constituted to adjudicate disputes which have ar....
Withdrawal of a writ petition without permission is deemed abandonment of the cause of action, affecting the maintainability of subsequent petitions.
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
