Skip to main content

Disputes and liabilities between parties need to be adjudicated, based upon partnership deed

In Vinod Kumar Saboo v. Sudarshan Vishwanath Malpani and Ors before the Bombay High Court, the Appellant-Original Defendant has filed Appeal and prayed to quash and set aside impugned Judgment passed by Single Judge. In facts of present case, Appellant and Respondents formed and signed a partnership deed and purchased a membership card of NSEI Limited in name of partnership firm i.e."Money Mint". During year 1998-1999, disputes and differences arose between them. On 2nd August, 2000, they signed an arrangement. Claim and counter-claim made through correspondences. On 1st August, 2004, Respondents filed Suit for recovery/claim of Rs. 40 lakhs and has taken out Summons for Judgment. On 16th August, 2005, Single Judge passed impugned order and thereby directed to deposit full amount of Rs. 40 lakhs. Being aggrieved, Appellant has filed present Appeal.

Apex Court in, State Bank of Hyderabad v. Rabo Bank  has held that, in cases where Defendant has raised a triable issue or a reasonable defence, defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend. Leave is granted to defend even in cases where Defendant upon disclosing a fact, though lacks defence but makes a positive impression that at trial the defence would be established to Plaintiff's claim. Only in cases where the defence set up is illusory or sham or practically moonshine, is Plaintiff entitled to leave to sign judgment. Regarding question of maintainability of suit in question under Order 37 of CPC, this Court has in Neebha Kapoori v. Jayantilal Khandwala observed that, where the applicability of Order 37 of CPC, itself is in question, grant of leave to defend may be permissible. Court before passing a decree is entitled to take into consideration the consequences therefor. Courts dealing with summary trials should act very carefully taking note of interests of both parties. Merely on ground that, Defendant may resort to prolonged litigation by putting forth untenable and frivolous defences, grant of leave to defend cannot be declined. At same time, Court must ensure that, Defendant raises a real issue and not a sham one. Court cannot reject defence on ground of implausibility or inconsistency.

While exercising jurisdiction and dealing with rival contentions in Summary Suits, Court is required to consider, apart from law so referred, facts and circumstances of case, as that should be the base for passing conditional or unconditional order. Admittedly, contract is based upon a stated agreement dated 2nd August, 2000. It was necessary to comply with certain reciprocal obligations with clear terms that "retirement is complete only after full payment is received". Payment needs to be made in two months from 2nd August, 2000. There was no clarification sought at any point of time. Appellant, on non-compliance, for whatever may be the reason, has not acquired 100% control/ownership over firm "Money Mint". Respondents, therefore, could not have retired as partners in partnership firm.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more