SADANNAND VAMAN SADEKAR Vs. MANJU AVINASH WARDEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri M. B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri V. P. Thali, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE above appeal challenges the judgment dated 23.09.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, North Goa, Panaji, whereby the objections raised by the respondents herein to the award passed by the learned Arbitrator under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 came to be allowed ( hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1996" ).

(3.) SHRI M. B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned District Judge has gone on the premise that merely because the partnership agreement contemplated that in case of retirement of the partners, such partners shall be entitled only to the balance amount as shown in the books of account as payable to such partners, the appellant was not entitled to claim any amount towards his share in the assets of the partnership firm. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that once the appellant is accepted to be a partner of the partnership firm, it is well settled that he is entitled for all the assets as well as the liability of such partnership firm and merely because he has retired, it cannot be said that he waives or forfeit his right in such assets in the partnership firm. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that in fact the appellant was entitled for the dissolution of the partnership firm pursuant to the said letter of retirement as the appellant was excluded from the affairs of the partnership firm. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has totally misconstrued the relevant provisions of law as the principles which govern the right of the partners in such firm are well settled. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the learned Arbitrator has rightly considered the matter in dispute and has come to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to the share of the assets to the extent attributable to the share of the appellant in the partnership firm. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the Chartered Accountant/ Accountant was appointed to value the assets of the partnership firm as on the date of the retirement and as such the learned Judge has erroneously interfered in the said award and passed the impugned judgment.