Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 1928 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1928 (1) TMI 4 - RANGOON HIGH COURTDenial in alleged new partnership - share of widow and children of deceased in the partnership firm - dissolution of partnership. Time limitation of filing suit - Held that:- The dissolution of a partnership is not a rescission of a contract. There appears to be no article specifically dealing with a suit for dissolution. That being so, Article 120 would apply, thus giving a period of six years. And the starting point would be the time when the defendant refused to give the plaintiff any of the profits of the business, that is, from 1922, or at the earliest November 1921. On that basis the suit was in time. Article 106 will not apply, because there has never been a dissolution of the partnership between Amina Bi and the defendant. The latter's declaration in November 1921, could not amount to a dissolution, since he remained in possession of the firm's assets and continued to carry on its business. The District Judge further said that, as a Mahomedan widow, Amina Bi could have no share in the mill itself. I know of no authority for this proposition, which has not been supported. Aminal Bi asked only for her share of the profits for three years before the suit and in my view she is clearly entitled to that. The decree of the District Court is amended by declaring that the plaintiffs collectively are entitled to one-half of the assets of the firm at the time of the death of Masaji Hashim Acha, that the minor plaintiffs are entitled to seven-eighths of one-half of the net profits since the death of Musaji Hashim Acha, and that plaintiff 1, Amina Bi. is entitled to one-eight of one-half of the net profits since a date three years before the institution of the suit, the net profits being in each case calculated after deduction of reasonable remuneration for the defendant's management of the business; and would direct that an account be taken accordingly and a final decree passed in accordance with the account. The defendant fails in the appeal - defendant must pay the costs of the plaintiffs in both appeals and in the District Court.
|