Dismissed

M/S.G.S.Naidu Constructions v. Chennai Metrpolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Madras HC4 Mar 2022WA/418/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed an appeal against a writ petition dismissing an application to continue the registration of a partnership firm after one partner died. Relying on the Indian Partnership Act and Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that a sole partner cannot continue a firm requiring two partners.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed. No order as to costs. Connected C.M.P.Nos. closed.

M/S.G.S.Naidu Constructions Vs Chennai Metrpolitan… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 04.03.2022

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶7

W.A.No.418 of 2022

¶8

G.S.Naidu Constructions rep. by its Manager, A.D.Ramesh Babu No.14/840, Bobbili Raja Salai K.K.Nagar, Chennai - 600 078. .. Appellant/ Petitioners Vs Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board rep. by its Superintending Engineer (C&M) No.1, Pumping Station Road Chintadripet, Chennai - 600 002. .. Respondent/ Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.12.2021 in W.P.No.19149 of 2021.

¶10

Prayer in W.P.No.19149 of 2021:

¶11

Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent relating to letter No. CMWSSB / C and M / CNT / C2 / Registration / Intimation / 2021-22 dated 27.08.2021 and quash the same.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶15

By this writ appeal a challenge is made to the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15.12.2021, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶16

The writ petition was filed to challenge the deregistration of the partnership firm on account of the death of one partner out of two. The writ petition was filed to seek continuance of the registration of the firm. As per the terms of the partnership deed, the legal heirs of the deceased were to be brought as partners and immediate steps were also taken. Though it may not be strictly as per the provisions of law, but the legal heirs of the deceased partner were inducted in the partnership firm. The process to get a new firm registered is almost complete, rather, it is at the final stage. In view of the above, the partnership firm should not have been deregistered.

¶17

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the moment one partner out of two dies, the surviving partner cannot hold the partnership firm without it being reconstituted by any third party. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax M.P., Nagpur and Bhandara, Nagpur v. Seth Govindram Sugar Mills, AIR 1966 SC 24 and also referring to Section 42(c) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (for short, "the Act of 1932"), the learned Single Judge held that continuance of the partnership firm cannot be sought by the sole partner, as the partnership firm needs minimum two partners. Accordingly, the prayer made by the writ petitioner was not accepted by the learned Single Judge.

¶18

While disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has given liberty to the writ petitioner to make an application afresh to the respondent, after reconstituting the partnership firm, seeking for registration. However, according to the writ appellant, there should have been continuance of the registration of the partnership firm till it is reconstituted. The argument aforesaid cannot be accepted in the light of Section 42(c) of the Act of 1932 and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Seth Govindram Sugar Mills (supra). The continuance of the registration cannot be given for a partnership firm having only one partner. Accordingly, the prayer made by the writ petitioner cannot be accepted.

¶19

We find no error in the order of the learned Single Judge. Rather, an appropriate order has been passed by the learned Single Judge. Thus, finding no merit in the writ

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

appeal, the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.3152 and 3149 of 2022 are closed.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

bbr