Dismissed

Zahreer Feroze Panthaki v. Lachman Chaturbhuj Java and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Jul 2014S/884/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court set down a suit for dissolution of partnership firms and accounts to ex-parte decree hearing. Since defendants remained absent, the plaintiff's case was accepted based on affidavit evidence. The court passed a preliminary decree and directed the commissioner to take accounts within six months.

What did the court decide?

Preliminary decree passed in terms of prayer; Commissioner directed to take accounts within six months; suit set for final decree on 5 January 2015.

Zahreer Feroze Panthaki Vs Lachman Chaturbhuj Java and… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

3.s.884.1995.doc

¶2

dik

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

SUIT NO. 884 OF 1995

¶5

Zahreer Feroze Panthaki ...Plaintiff vs Lachman Chaturbhuj Java & Ors. ...Defendants

¶6

Ms Kavita Sunderdas Lalwani for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendants

¶7

CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.

¶8

JULY 03, 2014

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

The suit is filed by the Plaintiff for dissolution of the partnership firms, of Joy Icecreams, Joy Marketing Company and Joy Finance Company, and accounts. The Defendants, who are the partners of the Plaintiff in these partnership firms, were duly served with the Writ of Summons, but have not filed their Written Statement in the suit. The suit was accordingly set down for exparte decree by an order passed by this Court on 11 April 2014. The suit thereafter appeared on board for ex-parte decree on 27 June 2014, when none appeared for the Defendants. The suit was stood over to today's date. Even today, none appears for the Defendants.

¶11

2 The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff has tendered a list of documents together with the originals and also filed an affidavit of the Plaintiff in lieu of examination-in-chief, seeking inter alia to prove the documents filed.

¶12

3 The Plaintiff has produced a copy of the partnership deed of Joy Icecreams which shows that the Plaintiff has 25 % share in the partnership, whilst Defendant Nos.1 and 2 respectively have 50 % and 25 % shares. The partnership is at will. The Plaintiff has also deposed about the other two

¶13

Pg 1 of 2

¶14

3.s.884.1995.doc

¶15

partnership firms i.e. Joy Marketing company and Joy Finance Co. which were part of the business of M/s Joy Ice-cream. By a notice dated 27 September 1994, the Plaintiff has dissolved the partnership and called upon the Defendants to make up and render accounts of the partnership firms. The notice has been duly received by the Defendants.

¶16

4 The Plaintiff relies upon a Notice of Motion taken out by him in the present suit being Notice of Motion No.876 of 1995 and minutes of consent terms tendered by the parties in that Motion. The consent terms inter alia provide for payment of Rs.1.10 crores by the Defendants to the Plaintiff in full and final satisfaction of the Plaintiff's share in the partnership firms. The consent terms provide that upon payment of the said sum of Rs.1.10 crores, the Plaintiff shall have no claim in the partnership firms or their accounts. The Defendants have failed to pay said amount of Rs.1.10 crores. In his affidavit in lieu of examinationin-chief, the Plaintiff has deposed about non receipt of any amount from the Defendants in accordance with the consent terms up to the date of the affidavit. A copy of the said consent terms is also produced in evidence.

¶17

5 Having regard to the original documents, which are proved by the Plaintiff by leading oral evidence in the form of affidavit in lieu of examination-inchief dated 11 April 2014, the Plaintiff has proved his case.

¶18

6 Accordingly, there shall be a preliminary decree in terms of prayer clause (a). Commissioner for taking accounts is directed to take accounts in terms of prayer clause (a) and certify the result of the accounts within a period of six months from today.

¶19

7 Place this suit for final decree on 5 January 2015.

Zahreer Feroze Panthaki v. Lachman Chaturbhuj Java and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zahreer Feroze Panthaki v. Lachman Chaturbhuj Java and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh S Kathotia Vs Milton Global Ltd.

Tarunkumar M. Dhumavat Vs Anthony P. Lewis and Ors. and Shaymsunder R. Agarwal

S.M. International and Anr. Vs Nirmal Doshi and 2 Ors.

Vijaya Bank Vs Maker Development Services Pvt. Ltd.

Gaurav G. Rajpurohit Vs Bharat M. Parekh and 3 Ors.

M/S. Girnar Residency Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. (Proposed)and Ors. Vs M/S. Shradha Co-Operative Housing Society Limited and Ors.