LAWS(BOM)-1996-7-52

PRABHAKAR GAJANAN NAIK Vs. SOUTH KONKAN DISTILLERIES

Decided On July 15, 1996
PRABHAKAR GAJANAN NAIK Appellant
V/S
SOUTH KONKAN DISTILLERIES Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant (plaintiff in the Suit) had filed a Suit for dissolution and accounts of partnership firm, respondent No.1. THE case of the appellant is that partnership in the name and style M/s South Konkan Distrilleries, namely respondent No.1, was constituted on 15th January, 1975. THE partners of the said partnership were the appellant and respondents Nos. 2 to 5 (original defendants in the Suit ). Initially, the said partnership was managed by respondent No.5 as partner from May, 1975 and from June, 1985, the management was taken over by respondent No.4, who continued to manage the affairs of the said firm till the partnership was dissolved. According to the appellant, the partnership was at will and the appellant had given notice to the respondents for its dissolution and, thereafter, the Suit in question was filed. THE appellant claims that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are in collusion with respondent No.4.

(2.) ALONG with the Suit, the appellant filed application for receivership under Order 40, Rule 1 C. P. C. wherein it was alleged that respondent No.4, in collusion with respondents Nos. 2 and 3, was conducting affairs of the firm and respondent No.4 had completely ousted the plaintiff and defendant No.5 from the affairs of the said partnership firm and that respondent No.4 had not been rendering accounts from the year 1984 till date. Admittedly, the appellant was never in the management of the said firm. Except for bare averments in the plaint and the application for receivership, no details relating to collusion of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 with respondent No.4 were placed on record. Likewise, the appellant in the receivership application further stated that the firm was not in the safe hands of respondent No.4 and the property is being wasted and is likely to be wasted further by respondent No.4. These are also bare allegations without any supporting material being placed on this aspect.

(3.) THE matter was argued at length by learned Advocates for the parties.