Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(v) The Petitioners cannot be heard to contend that the Corporation could not have rejected their Proposal for redevelopment as it was not a collective proposal made by all the partners/ heirs of the deceased partners, and that they had complied with the orders dated 07.07.2022 and 07.01.2025.

(ii) In fact, the said partnership firm having been dissolved, it is a matter of law that a dissolved partnership firm cannot undertake the redevelopment of the demolished building and it was only in view of the Honble Court's order Sunny Thote 40 of 68 5-WP-3004-2025.odt dated 07.07.2022, that the Corporation was willing to accept a collective Proposal for redevelopment, if made by all the partners/ heirs of deceased partners.

7. Mr. Khandeparkar has not disputed the dates and sequence of events. In his submissions, he contends that it was Petitioner No.1 who had instituted a Suit No.1010 of 1973 on account of disputes inter se amongst the partners. Undisputedly, the partnership firm was dissolved by a decree on 20.08.2018 passed by the City Civil Court. The partnership was dissolved at the behest of Petitioner No.1. Subsequently, M/s. Ghanshyam Saligram Khanna another partner of the dissolved partnership firm, now deceased and represented by his heirs, including Respondent Nos.16 and 17, filed First Appeal No.1912 of 2024 (Stamp No.31064 of 2018) before the Sunny Thote 53 of 68 5-WP-3004-2025.odt Single Judge Bench.

22. In Saligram Ruplal Khanna (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Three-Judges Bench), while considering the scope of a dissolved partnership firm, has concluded as under:

'30. Reference has also been made on behalf of the appellants to the consent given by the respondent on behalf of SAMCO on November 13, 1957 to the award of Rs. 18,00,000 by Mr. Morarji Desai in favour of the Custodian against SAMCO. It is urged that this document would go to show that the firm of SAMCO had not been dissolved before that date. We are unable to agree. The arbitration proceedings had been started as a result of application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act filed on April 21, 1955 when SAMCO was in existence and was a running concern. The arbitration proceedings related to a claim of the Custodian of Rs. 30,00,000 on account of the price of stocks of raw material, stores and other moveables as well as about the arrears of rent. Counter-claim had also been made by SAMCO against the Custodian for a sum of Rs. 17,67,080 as per written, statement dated December 18, 1956 filed in arbitration proceedings. The consent which was given by the respondent on November 13, 1957 was with a view to get the dispute between SAMCO with the Custodian finally settled. This was a necessary step for the purpose of winding up the affairs of SAMCO and to complete transaction of arbitration proceedings which had been begun but remained unfinished at the time of dissolution. According to Section 47 of the Indian Partnership Act, after the dissolution of a firm the authority of each partner to bind the firm, and the other mutual rights and obligations of the partners, continue notwithstanding the dissolution, so far as may be necessary to wind up the affairs of the firm and to complete transactions begun but unfinished at the time of the dissolution, but not otherwise. The word Sunny Thote 62 of 68 5-WP-3004-2025.odt "transaction" in Section 47 refers not merely to commercial transaction of purchase and sale but would include also all other matters relating to the affairs of the partnership. The completion of a transaction would cover also the taking of necessary steps in connection with the adjudication of a dispute to which a firm before its dissolution is a party. The legal position in this respect has been stated on page 251 of Lindley on Partnership, 13th Edn. as under:

28. Considering all the relevant factors emerging from the record, we are convinced that the impugned orders passed by the Corporation terminating the lease agreement cannot be termed as Sunny Thote 66 of 68 5-WP-3004-2025.odt being perverse or erroneous. Glaring illegalities and irregularities committed by the firm and then by the Petitioners, have been duly considered and dealt with. In fact, taking into account the law laid down in Saligram Ruplal Khanna (supra), a dissolved Partnership firm cannot create further rights, more so, when it is sought to initiate a new transaction of undertaking a new project of construction of a building.