Dismissed

Darshan Singh & Anr. v. Jagsir Singh & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC31 Aug 2015RSA/1829/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that partnership cannot be established for running a bus if the permit is not issued in the partnership's name. Such an arrangement violates public policy and the Motor Vehicles Act. Consequently, no relief for dissolution of partnership could be granted, and the second appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed; the dismissal of the suit was affirmed; no relief for dissolution of partnership was granted.

Darshan Singh & Anr. Vs Jagsir Singh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

-1-

¶2

RSA No.1829 of 2013 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.1829 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision.31.08.2015

¶5

Darshan Singh and another

¶6

.......Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Jagsir Singh and another

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

Present: Mr. PKS Phoolka, Advocate for the appellants.

¶11

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶12

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

¶16

K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)

¶17

Delay of 4 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶18

The case made by the plaintiffs for dissolution of partnership

¶19

was resisted on a plea that the bus was run by the defendants although the permit had been issued in their names and the registration of the vehicle stood in their name it was really a subject of partnership. There can be no partnership in relation to a business of running a bus if the permit itself was not issued in the name of partnership. The permit or registration will enure only personally to the person in whose name it is issued and no plea of partnership could be set up. It is against public policy and shall be taken as violative of Section 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Section 42 and Section 59 which bar trafficking in permits.

¶20

In Brij Mohan Parikar Vs. MPSRTC (1987) 1 SCC 13 , the Supreme Court refused a writ of mandamus to permit the petitioner to ply the bus as a

¶21

nominee for the permit holder. The principle will apply to a partnership PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.09.07 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

-2-

¶23

RSA No.1829 of 2013 (O&M)

¶24

also. The suit had been dismissed on a finding that the partnership had not been proved. I will go one step further. Even if such partnership had been proved, it will be against public policy and no relief for dissolution

¶25

of partnership could be granted in the light of the law stated above.

¶26

The dismissal of the suit was justified and I find no cause for

¶27

interference in the second appeal. The second appeal is dismissed.

¶28

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶29

August 31, 2015 Pankaj*

¶30

PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.09.07 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Darshan Singh & Anr. v. Jagsir Singh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darshan Singh & Anr. v. Jagsir Singh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashi Rani Vs Urmila Devi & Os.

Roshan Dass Vs State of Haryana

Rup Chand Vs State of Haryana & Another

Municipal Council, Karnal Now Municipal Corporation, Karnal Vs Raminder Singh etc.

Manjit Kaur and Ors. Vs Karnail Singh

Pritam Kaur Vs Deepak Kumar