Allowed

Kokila H.Shah v. Sailesh v.Shah and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Oct 2009S/1018/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court decreed a suit for dissolution of a partnership firm at will and for passing accounts. The court observed that the partnership had ceased activities since 1994 and the defendants admitted the nature of the partnership. A preliminary decree was passed dissolving the firm and ordering accounting.

What did the court decide?

Partnership dissolved from date of suit; preliminary decree passed for accounts in terms of prayer clauses (b), (c), (d).

Kokila H.Shah Vs Sailesh v.Shah and Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

O. O. C. J.

SUIT NO.1018 OF 1997

Kokila H. Shah

..Plaintiff.

Vs.

Sailesh V. Shah and others

¶9

..Defendants.

¶10

Mr. B.G. Wadhwa with Mr. Ankit Mehta and Ms Renuka Lele i/b M/s. Haresh Mehta & Co. for the Plaintiff.

¶11

Mr. Pankaj Suthar i/b Khaitan & Jayakar for Defendants 1 and 2. Mr. Denzil D’Mello for Defendant No.3.

¶12

CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

¶13

1^st October, 2009.

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

The Plaintiff and the Defendants have been carrying on business in partnership in the firm name and style of M/s. Cherifine under a deed of partnership dated 4^th November, 1971. The firm has been registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The partnership is at will. The

¶16

business of the firm originally commenced in 1965 and the firm manufactured bulk drugs and fine chemicals at Indore. The Plaintiff was inducted as a partner in 1971 under a deed dated 4^th November, 1971.

¶17

¶18

The firm had business at Mumbai and Indore and properties at both these places. Disputes and differences are alleged to have taken place after 1990. The activities of the firm have come to a complete stand still; the workers have been discharged and no manufacturing activities have been carried out since 1994. The plant and machinery in the factory at Indore are, it has been averred, lying idle. The Plaintiff has levelled serious allegations in regard to the conduct of the First Defendant. The suit has been instituted for dissolution and accounts.

¶19

All the Defendants have been served. The Defendants have entered appearance but have not filed the written statement. Since July 6, 2009 adjournments were sought before the Court and granted on the ground that a settlement was likely. Finally on 10^th September, 2009 this Court clarified that the parties if they may so desire, place the terms of the settlement, if any, arrived at on the record failing which the suit shall proceed to hearing. No settlement has been arrived at.

¶20

The Plaintiff has filed an affidavit in lieu of the examination in chief

¶21

¶22

and verified the correctness of what is stated therein. A compilation of

¶23

the documents has been filed. The Defendants have not contested the position even during the course of the hearing that the partnership is at will and that a preliminary decree would have to be passed in terms as prayed. The suit shall accordingly stand decreed in terms of prayer clause (a). The partnership shall stand dissolved from the date of the institution of the suit. There shall be a preliminary decree in terms of prayer clauses (b), (c) and (d). Counsel appearing on behalf of the Second Defendant states that particulars of the fixed deposit receipts, the bank accounts and documents pertaining to the properties of the parties shall be furnished to the Commissioner for taking Accounts within a period of two weeks.

¶24

Kokila H.Shah v. Sailesh v.Shah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kokila H.Shah v. Sailesh v.Shah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Famous Cine Laboratories and Studios Ltd. Vs M/S. Ramsay Motion Pictures

Shyam Sunder M.Malpani Vs Satyanarayan M.Malpani and Ors.

Shmalal C. Chadha Vs Manoharlal C. Chadna and Anr.

Satnam Apartments Ltd. Vs Ashok K.Bhatia and Ors.

Motor Industries Co. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Air Freight Ltd.

Mandar Pharma Vs Lakhimpur Drug Distributor