DHARANIDHAR DAS GUPTA Vs. MURARIDHAR DAS GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has alleged that in 1952, by a registered deed of conveyance, the plaintiff and his younger brother, defendant, acquired the good will and assets of the soap manufacturing concern run under the name and style of New Bombay Soap Factory. Before that, they used to carry on soap making business under the name and style of Midga Soap Company With the purchased assets and the assets of Midga Soap Co., the parties entered into a partnership firm, which was registered on the 20th February, 1953. In 1960, they started a brick business in partnership under the name and style of Das Gupta Brothers at uttarmouri Howrah. He took charge of the brick business and the defendant of the soap business. In 1967, the brick business came to an end because the landlord took possession of the bride field in execution of a decree for eviction. Then he intended to take part In the management of soap business. But his brother adopted a hostile attitude. After September, 1960, no accounts were rendered by the defendant regarding the soap business. He could not have any access to the books of accounts The defendant has been illegally dealing with the materials obtained on the basis of the permits issued by the Government. Hence the suit for accounts on dissolution of such soap business.

(2.) The defendant has filed a written statement. It has been alleged, inter alia, that the plaintiff kept him in the dark about the affairs of the brick business. The plaintiff earned huge profits from that business and appropriated the same. No accounts have been rendered. Income tax returns had been submitted till 1970-1971. He also made a counterclaim and asked for accounts of monies transferred to the brick business from the soap business on its dissolution.

(3.) The learned Munsif stated that the defendant admitted that he was liable to render accounts to the plaintiff regarding the soap business. The parties did not fill the same character in the transaction relating to the brick business. There are two distinct partnerships and hence, the prayer for counter claim was not maintainable. He decreed the suit in a preliminary form and declared that the firm regarding the soap business stood dissolved from the date of the decree dated the 28th March, 1977. Necessary directions to render accounts were given. The defendant preferred an appeal. The plaintiff also filed a cross-objection. The learned appellate court stated that the defendant's counter claim regarding the brick business arose out of the transactions between the parties and such counter-claim was entertainable in law. The learned Munsif's finding on this was set inside. Article 113 of the Limitation Act applied. The brick business was closed in 1967 and hence, the prayer for counter-claim made by filing a written statement on the 5th June, 1973, was barred by time. The appeal was dismissed.