LAWS(BOM)-1992-4-16

SHIVRAJ FINE ART LITHO WORKS Vs. PURUSHOTTAM

Decided On April 10, 1992
SHIVRAJ FINE ART LITHO WORKS Appellant
V/S
PURUSHOTTAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A decree for Rs. 8,92,815. 14 was passed against the original defendants Nos. 1 to 9 holding them jointly and severally liable to make payment to the plaintiffs by judgment delivered on 29-4-1987 in Special Civil Suit No. 52 of 1980 by the Third Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur. Feeling aggrieved thereby the present appeal is filed by the original defendants Nos. 1 to 3.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the appeal are as follows : the plaintiff No. 1 carried on the business as whole-sale paper merchant under the name and style "dinesh Paper Mart" being the sole proprietor. The said business is now taken over by the partnership also in the name of "dinesh Paper Mart" with all its existing assets and liabilities with effect from 1-1-1980. The suit claim being one of the assets of the partnership firm it was joined as plaintiff No. 2. After formation of the partnership the plaintiff No. l Purushottam became the partner of the firm. The plaint is signed by plaintiff No. 1 as an individual as well as the partner of the firm.

(3.) THE defendant No. 1 was a registered partnership firm of which the defendants Nos. 2 to 9 were the partners. In a suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts, registered as Special Civil Suit No. 9 of 1974, the defendant No. 10 was appointed as a Receiver to take possession of the properties and run the business of the firm. In the year 1978 the defendant No. 2 was appointed to work as a Receiver in place of defendant No. 10. This order was challenged in A. O. No. 20 of 1978 in this Court. The defendant No. 11 came to be appointed as a Joint Receiver in addition to defendant No. 2. Due to refusal by the defendant No. 1l to act as a Joint Receiver, the defendant No. 12 came to be appointed as a Joint Receiver in his place. At the relevant time the defendant No. 2 and the defendant No. 12 were in management of the firm.