DAVIS Vs. DHANYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Final decree passed in a suit for dissolution of a firm and settlement of accounts is challenged in the appeal by some of the defendants (defendants 2, 3, 4 and 6). Respondents in the appeal are the plaintiff, first defendant and fifth defendant. Final decree passed earlier in the suit was challenged before this court by defendants 2 to 6 together. Decree passed in respect of some of the matters involved, covered by A to E, K and L in the judgment, was confirmed, and with respect to the rest the case was remitted for consideration afresh. On such remission, with no further evidence placed by parties, reconsidering the matters which were directed to be gone into, the Trial Court again passed a final decree, and, it is now challenged in this appeal. Plaintiff and first defendant (respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal), both of them together, have filed cross objections to the extent they are aggrieved by the decree passed by the court below. Both the appeal and Cross Objections, after being heard together, are disposed under this judgment.

(2.) Though various grounds are raised in the memorandum of appeal touching upon various aspects involved in the case, at the time of hearing, learned counsel for appellants fairly submitted challenge against the decree is confined to the period fixed over the liability of second defendant, receiver appointed over the firm and its properties, in remitting monthly sum of ' 20,000/- which was the sum fixed for payment every month on his appointment as receiver. In the previous decree passed by the court below under Clause (G) second defendant had been directed to deposit the amount of ' 20,000/- till he handed over possession of factory and the premises in favour of the plaintiff and first defendant. In the appeal preferred against that decree Clause (G) with some other clauses as well had been set side directing reconsideration of the questions involved thereof afresh. Now, the appeal and also Cross Objections, both of them, admittedly, are confined to challenges over the period for which second defendant receiver was directed to remit the monthly sum fixed at the rate of ' 20,000/- on his appointment as receiver of the firm and its assets. Period fixed for such remittance under Clause (G) in the judgment passed by the court below, and that alone, is under challenge. When that be so, decree passed over other matters, covered by other clauses in the revised judgment rendered by the court below, which dealt with various aspects over the rights and obligations of parties to the suit in settling the accounts of the dissolved firm, do not require to be dealt with for disposal of this appeal.

(3.) Controversy requiring resolution in the appeal and cross objections over the correctness of the finding over the liability of 2nd defendant as receiver in the remittance of monthly sum fixed, which forms part of Clause (G) in the judgment, is very limited though conflicting and divergent case is canvassed thereof by the appellants and cross objections.