LAWS(MAD)-2014-2-102

HALIMA BAI Vs. SPARKLE-ADS-FIRM

Decided On February 26, 2014
Halima Bai Appellant
V/S
Sparkle-Ads-Firm Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the Decree and Judgment dated 27.01.2009 passed in final decree application in I.A.No.13516 of 2008 in O.S.NO.5151/1996, on the file of the VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) THE plaintiff in whose favour a preliminary decree was passed for accounts of the first defendant partnership firm from 03.04.1992 to 17.01.1994 and for 1/4 th share in the assets and liabilities of the first defendant Partnership Firm, has filed the final decree application in I.A.No.13516/2008. Aggrieved by the order passed in the said Interlocutory Application, the above appeal is preferred.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant is the partnership firm comprising of four partners i.e. the plaintiff and 2 to 4 defendants by virtue of partnership deed dated 03.04.1992. The partnership firm was engaged in advertising business and allied matters. Each of the partner has contributed a sum of Rs.10,000/ - towards share capital and the partnership was one at will. Whileso, the plaintiff expressed her willingness to retire from the partnership firm and sent letter on 17.01.1994. The said letter was acknowledged by the defendants 2 to 4 by letter dated 24.01.1994, confirming that the plaintiff was deemed to have retired from the partnership firm with effect from 18.01.1994. Though the plaintiff retired from the partnership firm, the existing partners reconstituted the deed of partnership and carried on their business. It was contended by the plaintiff that the partnership firm did not settle her accounts on retirement despite several demands and that she demanded to settle all her share in respect of transactions from 03.04.1992 to 18.01.1994, till the date of settlement of her dues. The plaintiff also had given break -up of the amounts that she is entitled to from the partnership firm in paragraph 8 of the plaint, as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_249_TLMAD0_2014.htm</FRM>