Allahbad High Court
R.B.MISRA,M.N.SHUKLA
Gur Dayal Prasad - Appellant
Versus
L. Raghunath Prasad - Respondent
Decided On : 09/24/1975
PARTNERSHIP - DISSOLUTION - SUIT FOR - PARTNERSHIP DEED - TERMS OF - WITHDRAWAL OF PARTNER - PROCEDURE FOR - SALE OF SHARE - RIGHT OF - DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP - RIGHT OF - ARBITRATION CLAUSE - EFFECT OF - RES JUDICATA - APPLICATION OF.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, partners in a spinning mill, filed a suit for dissolution of partnership, rendition of accounts and recovery of damages. The defendants, the other partners, contested the suit on various grounds, including that the suit was not maintainable in view of the arbitration clause in the partnership deed and that the judgment in a previous suit between one of the partners and the firm operated as res judicata. The trial court decreed the suit for accounting and damages, but dismissed the claim for dissolution of partnership.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the suit for dissolution of partnership was not maintainable in view of the terms of the partnership deed, which provided a specific procedure for the withdrawal of a partner and sale of his share. The court also held that the arbitration clause in the partnership deed did not bar the suit, as the dispute between the parties did not fall within the scope of the arbitration clause. The court further held that the judgment in the previous suit did not operate as res judicata, as the issues in that suit were different from the issues in the present suit.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit for dissolution of partnership was maintainable in view of the terms of the partnership deed? 2. Whether the arbitration clause in the partnership deed barred the suit? 3. Whether the judgment in the previous suit operated as res judicata?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The terms of the partnership deed provided a specific procedure for the withdrawal of a partner and sale of his share. This procedure was exclusive and barred the right of a partner to dissolve the partnership at will. 2. The arbitration clause in the partnership deed did not bar the suit, as the dispute between the parties did not fall within the scope of the arbitration clause. 3. The judgment in the previous suit did not operate as res judicata, as the issues in that suit were different from the issues in the present suit.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the defendants and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed in respect of the amount claimed as damages. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed.
R. B. MISRA, J.:-The present appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated 30th October, 1958, passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Agra in a suit for dissolution of partnership, rendition of accounts and for recovery of damages.
2. There was a spinning mill at Hathras in the district of Aligarh, known as Ram Chand Hardeo Dass. This mill was, later on, purchased by
Shroti Lal Bankey Lal and others in execution of a decree No. 217 of 1916 for a sum of Rupees 24,00,000. According to the plaintiffs, the purchasers were short of funds. They, therefore, approached Makhan Lal, grandfather of plaintiff No. 1 and father of Ram Swarup plaintiff No. 2 and persuaded him to become a partner in the said mill on the assurance of prospective profits. Makhan Lal agreed to become a partner and invested a sum of Rs. 2,25,000 out of Rs. 24,00,000, the total sale consideration of the mill. The terms of the partnership were agreed upon in or about November, 1920, and later on, a partnership deed dated 4th April, 1923, incorporating the terms of the partnership was written out at Agra and registered at Hathras. Under the terms of the partnership, Bankey Lal, father of defendants Nos. 3 and 4 and husband of defendant No. 5, and Ganpat Lal, defendant No. 2 were appointed Manager and Assistant Manager respectively of the mill, which was styled as Lalla Mal Hardeon Dass Cotton and Spinning Mill, Hathras and to which a ginning factory and other immovable properties were attached. These two managers were responsible to keep and render correct accounts. Bankey Lal died in January, 1942, and, after his death, Gur Dayal Prasad, defendant No. 1, was appointed as Manager and Ganpat Lal continued to be the Assistant Manager and they were liable for rendering accounts of the partnership for the period during which they acted as Managers. The management of the mill was very unsatisfactory. The Managers did not hold regular meetings, as required by the deed of partnership. The accounts were not subjected for examination and audit nor true balance sheets were prepared nor the stocks of raw and finished materials were included therein. The yarn was sold at a favourable rate fictitiously to their own creatures and resold after making secret profits. The partners personally utilised the mill property without the price being debited in their accounts in utter disregard of Clause 11 of the partnership deed. The Managers were not purchasing cotton for the mill at Agra nor selling the yarn of the mill through the plaintiffs firm and the plaintiffs have thereby been put to heavy loss on account of the wrongful acts for which defendants Nos. 1 to 5 were liable. The Managers and other persons secured the majority of partners to their side by showing them illegal favour. They were not carrying on their duties imposed by law and under the terms of the partnership deed and were acting dishonestly with the sole object of misappropriating to themselves the profits of the mill and making illegal gains. The plaintiffs, fed up with the state of affairs of the mill, had no other alternative but to sever their connection with the mill and a notice dated 14th March, 1944, was served, under Clause 18 of the Partnership Deed, offering to sell their own share to the firm. No resolution was, however, passed on the notice despite its being included in the agenda of the meetings of 31st March, 1944, 16th April, 1944 and 28th May, 1944. On the other hand, to create complications, a supplementary aganda at the instance of certain members was issued on 7th April, 1944, that the mill be sold by public auction. This resolution was passed in the meeting of 28th May, 1944, with a view to causing loss and prejudice to the plaintiffs. The defendants were bound to inform the plaintiffs of their decision as to whether the firm was prepared to purchase the plaintiffs share or not within thirty days but the plaintiffs got no response. The result was that the price of the share
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.