Civil Appeal No. 6659-6660 of 2010
Section 37 and 48 of the Partnership Act
The case was the dispute between the two brothers whether who had formed there partnership firm. Lateron, this case was represented by their Legal Representatives. Under this Petitioner claimed that Respondent has retired from the partnership firm and is not entitled to any profit. And Respondent shows that he was still the partner due to some issues this all confusion arose. The trial court did not considered the plea of the Respondent whereas the Appellate court did and HC supported the decision of the Appellate Court. They demanded the time for settlement but that doesn't come out to any conclusion. It was also revealed that Amar Singh had his Company with the similar name of the partnership in which Swaran Singh has not objected.
The distinction between Retirement of the Partner and dissolution of the partnership was being given under this Judgement. The Judgement of Pamuru Vishnu Vinodh Reddy v. Chillakuru Chandersekhar Reddy and Ors.,(2003) 3 SCC 445.
As, per the other judgement which was considered in this case i.e. Erchad F.D. Mehta v. Minoo F.D Mehta, (1970) 2 SCC 724; that the partnership must have two members.
SC observed that when there are two partners and one has agreed to retire then the partnership firm will amount to the dissolution of the firm.
Section 3(5),26 of the Companies Act , Section 19(1)(a),27, 62 of the Competition Act, Section 84 of the Patents Act
Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949; Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882