JUGGILAL KAMLAPAT Vs. SEW CHAND BAGREE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in execution of a decree on an award made by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce dated Tune 14, 1950 on a dispute between Juggilal Kamlapat, the award holders, and Sew Chand Bagree, against whom the award was made. The decree was pased on Mav 28, 1951 for a total sum of over Rs. 31,000/-. The application is one under Order 21 Rule 50(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to execute the decree against Manik Chand Bagree, Moti Chand Bagree and Jankidas Eagree as partners of the firm of Sew Chand Bagree.

(2.) The award was given in respect of a con- tract entered into between Sew Chand Bagree and Juggilal Kamlapat on September 25, 1948. The application is being opposed by Manik Chand Bagree and Moti Chand Bagree whose case is that the firm of Sew Chand Bagree was dissolved in October 1945 by mutual consent of its partners and that thereafter their brother Jankidas Bagree started a new business in the name of Sew Chand Bagree with which they the other brothers had no concern. Sew Chand Bagree the individual was the father of the three persons already mentioned. From a copy of entries in the Register of firms maintained by the Registrar of Firms, West Bengal, it appears that the business of Sew Chand Bagree was established in the year 1924, that it was formerly a joint Hindu family business and that the partnership firm was started on October 28, 1933. The three partners, shown in the said record are Manik Chand Bagree, Moti Chand Bagree and Jankidas Bagree. This document does not show that there has been any change in the constitution of the firm ever since its inception. It is contended by the award holders that no change in the constitution of the firm having been notified and no public notice of the dissolution of the firm having been given under the provision of the Indian Partnership Act, all the partners continue to be liable for any act done by any of them. The award holders further do not admit that there was a dissolution of the firm in the year 1945 as alleged by the Bagrees. On the evidence adduced I must hold that there was a dissolution of the firm, On this finding the question is whether Sub-section (1) of Section 45 of the Partnership Act is brought into play or whether the point is covered by the proviso to the said Sub-section.

(3.) As the matter could not be determined on. affidavits it was set down for trial on evidence of the issue as to the liability of Manik Chand Bagree and Moti Chand Bagree under the decree based on the award.