Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.26 seconds)
Gur Dayal Prasad vs L. Raghunath Prasad And Ors. on 24 September, 1975 cites

Smt. Dropadi vs Bankey Lal And Ors. on 16 February, 1939

39. On a consideration of the various articles of the partnership deed, it is evident that it was open to the plaintiffs to have sold their shares privately if the firm did not purchase their shares. The partnership deed stipulated about all contingencies and provided for the withdrawal of the partner who considered his rights to have been prejudiced or desired to sell his share for some reason. It took away the right of any partner to dissolve the partnership and to bring the business of the mills to a standstill. Thus, the right of dissolution which was available to a partner on the ground of Section 44 of the Indian Partnership Act would not be available in the present case in view of the terms of the partnership deed. Besides, the claim for the dissolution of the partnership is not maintainable in view of the decision of Suit No. 35 of 1935, Smt. Dropadi Devi v. Bankey Lal. It was held, toy the court that the intention of the executants of the deed of partnership was that the firm should not be dissolved on the happening of the contingencies mentioned in the partnership deed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1