Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(i) In 1943, Gokaldas passed away prematurely leaving behind his widow Bai Mangubai and their two minor sons, Jagmohandas and Rameshchandra. Plaintiff No. 1 is the son of Jagmohandas. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the descendants of Rameshchandra.

July 1, 2025 Mohite appl30581-23.doc

(j) After the death of Gokaldas, disputes arose between Amichand and Vithaldas. Amichand insisted that Gokaldas's share in the partnership should be divided amongst them. However, Vithaldas resisted this and wanted his brother's share in the partnership to devolve upon his brother's widow and minor children. This led to the filing of Suit No. 37 of 1948 before this Court. Being a partnership business, a Court Receiver was appointed. After some litigation, coupled with great perseverance, Vithaldas eventually raised finance to purchase the firm Lallubhai Amichand together with its immovable and leasehold properties from the Court Receiver appointed in the Suit. While doing so, his primary intention was to ensure that his late brother's widow and children continued to enjoy the benefit of the partnership firm, which Gokaldas had worked hard to grow. Vithaldas wanted to ensure that his late brother's family be looked after, which culminated into Vithaldas and his wife entering into oral understandings with Bai Mangubai who was then representing the Gokaldas estate and the interest of her two minor children i.e. Jagmohandas and Rameshchandra. As a result, Vithaldas continued the business of the partnership.

(n) Hence, Defendant No. 4 and the above companies, from their inception, had been family companies established expressly to be nothing but a quasi-partnership. Originally, the foundational basis/oral understanding involved the family branches of Gokaldas and Vithaldas. Gokaldas' premature demise necessitated that the oral understanding (at that time between Bai Mangubai and Vithaldas) ensured the prosperity and well-being of his widow and two sons, Rameshchandra and Jagmohandas. At the same time, considering the seniority of Vithaldas and the efforts that he had taken to ensure the well-being of his brother's family, he was the permanent Managing Director of Defendant No. 4 and the above companies. He was however, heirless, and, therefore, on his demise in 1982, his share devolved upon Rameshchandra and Jagmohandas.

a) Paragraph 4 of the Plaint states that, in 1911, the efforts of the forefathers of the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.1 to 3 led to the expansion of the family business.
b) Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Plaint state that, in 1943, Gokaldas passed away. After Gokaldas' demise, disputes arose between Amichand and Vithaldas with Amichand insisting that Gokaldas' share be divided between Amichand and Vithaldas. Vithaldas resisted it since he wanted Gokaldas' share to devolve on his widow - Bai Mangubai and their children, namely, Jagmohandas and Rameshchandra. To this end, Vithaldas contested Suit No. 37 of 1948 before this Court and after great perseverance raised finances to purchase the firm altogether. This culminated in an oral understanding July 1, 2025 Mohite appl30581-23.doc between Vithaldas and Bai Mangubai and showed the intention of Vithaldas to ensure that the family benefits from the family businesses.

c) Paragraph 10 of the Plaint states that, on 16 th December 1948, Lallubhai Amichand ceased to be a partnership, and was incorporated as a company under the Companies Act, 1913, on the aforesaid understanding, with the families of Gokaldas and Vithaldas being the principal shareholders.

d) Paragraph 13 states that Defendant No.4 is, from inception, a family company established to be nothing but quasi-partnership, as evident from the understanding between Vithaldas and Bai Mangubai However, considering the seniority of Vithaldas, he was made a permanent Managing Director. But considering that Vithaldas was heirless, the business would automatically devolve on Jagmohandas and Ramchandra.