ORDER Defendants do pay Rs.
The trial companyrt accordingly passed the following order The plaintiff has filed this suit for account as the account was to be taken of the realisation and expenses of the stores.
The real account was to be taken of the actual receipts and expenses of the sale of stores.
116 was executed wherein Satyavati was shown as a partner of the plaintiff firm instead of her minor son Shashi Kumar.
That meeting was presided over by Shivratan G. Mohatta, partner of the plaintiff firm.
From the judgment and decree dated the 29th March 1st April 1968 of the Gujarat High Court in First Appeals Nos.
But by pursis Exhibit 424 the parties have agreed about the net realisation of the stores and have therefore urged that numberCommissioner be appointed and a final decree be passed.
Shashi Kumar under the deed of partnership of May 19, 1949 was entitled to the share of profits to the extent of four Annas in a rupee and was number liable for the losses which were to be borne by the other five partners.
The third circumstance relied upon by the High Court is letter dated August 1, 1950 Ex.
Two cross appeals were filed against the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
The plaintiff should pay the remaining Court fee stamp within a month.
Accordingly, as from that date Messrs Chaturbhujdas Kharawala Mohatta Co. took over as the new managing agents of the defendant company instead of the plaintiff firm.
The said scheme was approved by the shareholders on September 4, 1950.
The newly companystituted firm, according to the defendant company, had number been registered and as such the suit was number maintainable.
Defendants to bear their own companyt.
One appeal was by the defendant companypany praying for the dismissal of the plaintiffs suit.
The plaintiffs as shown above are entitled to receive Rs.
It is number necessary to refer to the other issues and the findings of the trial companyrt on those issues.
The other circumstance relied upon by the High Court was resolution dated January 21, 1950 passed by the Board of Directors of the defendant company.
Satyavati became entitled under the deed of October 24, 1949 number only to the share of profit to the extent of 4 Annas in a rupee but also became liable to share losses to that extent.
Dealing with the above companytention, the High Court disagreed with the finding of the trial companyrt that partnership deed Ex.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
But number numberhing is required to be done and hence there is numbernecessity of passing any preliminary decree.
4,77,850/ due to the Agents and their kith and Kin till this day and the list of which is given to us.
As the original partnership mentioned in the partnership deed dated May 19, 1949 had been registered, the plaintiffs suit was held to be number barred by section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act.
77,286 0 2, from defendant towards their deposit amount being the net surplus which they are entitled.
I, therefore, pass the following order.
K. Sen, L.M. Singhvi.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA, J. These two appeals on certificate by Mohatta Brothers plaintiff firm are directed against the judgment of Gujarat High Court whereby that companyrt reversed on appeal the judgment of the trial companyrt awarding a decree for recovery of Rs.
Besides taking other pleas with which we are number companycerned, the defendant companytended that the plaintiff firm companyld number maintain the suit as the companystitution of the old firm which acted as managing agents of the defendant company had been changed on October 24, 1949.
S. K. Bagga and Mrs. Bagga, for the appellant.
In that resolution there was reference to partnership deeds dated May 19, 1949 and October 24, 1949 which had been received along with letter dated December 1, 1949 from Mohatta Brothers.
The trial companyrt held that the new partnership deed Ex.
769 and 1029 of 1960.
P. Bhatt, B.S. Trivedi H. S. Parihar and I.N. Shroff, for the respondent.
The plaintiff firm carried on the business of managing agency of the defendant companypany up to September 4, 1950.
On October 24, 1949 another partnership deed Ex.
The plaintiffs case was that the liability of the Punjab National Bank was fully discharged by sale of the stores.
The Board of Directors took numbere of the changes mentioned in the above two partnership deeds and agreed to accept the partners therein mentioned.
Hence defendants are liable to pay the said amount to plaintiff.
116 dated October 24, 1949 had number been acted upon.
From that date, it was stated, the plaintiff firm companysisted of six partners, including Satyavati.
Partnership deed Ex.
77,286 0 2 and the companyt of the suit to plaintiff with future interest at 6 per cent from 1st January, 1956.
Suffice it to say that the defendant was held entitled to deduct certain amounts from the amount claimed by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff should pay the remaining Court fees within a month.
The plaintiff is a partnership firm doing business under the name and style of Mohatta Brothers.
116 by which Satyavati became a partner was number acted upon.
One of the companytentions advanced by the defendant companypany was as under The plaintiff firm was number entitled to file a suit as the plaintiff firm was differently companystituted from the firm of Mohatta Brothers as on 31st July 1950, and, in any event, as the minor Shashi kumar had become major in 1953 and had 1027 become a partner of the plaintiff firm Mohatta Brothers, Ahmedabad, and as even the name of Satyavati Devi who was the partner suing did number appear in the entry in the register of firms the present suit was barred under section 69 2 of the Act.
No bonus was held to be payable by the Industrial Court to the employees of the companypany for the year 1949.
116 was executed for this purpose on May 19, 1949 and was signed by the five partners and Satyavati.
1026 The suit was resisted by the defendant company.
2075 2076 of 1968.
The other appeal was by the plaintiff firm claiming for enhancement of the amount decreed by the trial companyrt.
