Dismissed

Chandrika Shankaran Nair and Ors. v. Maharashtra Motors and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jan 2013SA/1009/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal, the Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal. The court rejected the appellants' claim for interest on amounts falling due after retirement declaration from 1970 due to lack of specific legal provision, noting that actual account drawings were necessary.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. Second Appeal dismissed.

Chandrika Shankaran Nair and Ors. Vs Maharashtra Motors… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1009-01-sa=.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

SECOND APPEAL NO.1009 OF 2007

¶4

Mrs. Chandrika S. Nair & Ors. .. Appellants

¶5

V/s. Maharashtra Motors & Ors. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Sandesh D. Patil for the appellants Mr. S.S. Bhise for the respondents

¶7

CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 18^th JANUARY, 2013

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

Heard learned advocates on both sides. One Mr. Shankaran

¶10

filed Special Suit No.75 of 1973 for dissolution of the

¶11

partnership firm/accounts on account of his retirement from

¶12

the firm – respondent no.1 Maharashtra Motors. Said suit came to be filed in the Court of 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane. The same was decided on 31st March, 2001. The learned trial Judge passed judgment and decree in the said suit on 31st March, 2001 and ordered dissolution of the said firm from the date of the order dated 31st March, 2001. The Respondents filed Civil Appeal being Civil Appeal No.217 of

1 of 3

U.S.Jagtap

1009-01-sa=.doc

2001 in the Court of District Judge at Thane and prayed for appropriate reliefs. The said appeal was decided by judgment and decree dated 20th June, 2003. The claim of the present appellants was accepted as to the extent of his retirement w.e.f. 15th July, 1970. It was also held that he had 1/4th share in the assets of the partnership firm. Appropriate orders were passed so far as ascertaining the share of the present appellants. Cross-objections filed by the respondents were rejected.

¶17

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20th June, 2003 passed by the District Court, the present Second Appeal has been filed. I have heard learned advocate Mr. Patil on behalf of the appellants. It was argued on behalf of the present appellants, who are heirs of original plaintiff that the resignation was tendered in the year 1970 and the retirement is ordered from the year 1970. Learned advocate Mr. Patil submitted that the learned District Judge ought to have granted interest to the appellants on the amounts, which will fall due.

2 of 3

U.S.Jagtap

1009-01-sa=.doc

This submission of the present appellants cannot be accepted as no specific provision of law was stated on the basis of which an interest would be claimed. It is also required to be noted that the share of the original plaintiff has been determined as 1/4th . Accounts will have to be drawn and thereafter the actual monies are required to be paid to the present appellants. The submission that the present appellants are entitled to interest w.e.f. 15th July, 1970 is misconceived and cannot be entertained.

¶22

No substantial question of law is involved. The Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

[R.Y.GANOO, J.]

¶24

3 of 3

¶25

U.S.Jagtap

Chandrika Shankaran Nair and Ors. v. Maharashtra Motors and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrika Shankaran Nair and Ors. v. Maharashtra Motors 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

Dashrath Jaywant Kutwal (Deceased Thr. L/H.) 1A Hanumant Dashrath Kutwal Vs Ramdas Anandrao Kutwal

Dnyanoba Chandar Kunjir and Anr. Vs Anantrao Jaiwantrao Kunjir Since Died Heirs and Ors.

Dnyanoba Chandar Kunjir and Anr. Vs Anantrao Jaiwantrao Kunjir (Decd.)by Lrs.

Satara Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj (through Its Chairman) Vs Arvind Rajaram Salunkhe

Machhindra Kashinath Mandale Vs Jalindar Kashinath Mandale

Sarjerao Jalindar Mandale Vs Lochanabia Jalindar Mandale