LexVASANT RAO AND ANOTHER versus SHYAMRAO AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c E 218 V ASANT RAO AND ANOTHER v. SHYAMRAO AND ORS. July 28, 1977 (A. C. GUPTA .AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] Conipanies Act, 1956, Part X, S. 590 ris-a-vis Indian Partnership Act, 1932 for winding lip of unregistered co111panies. In a civil suit for the dissolution of partnership between the appellants and respondents, the defendants-respondents raised an objection that the court had no jurisdiction to entettain the suit in view of Part X of the Companies Act, 1956. The application 'vas rejected by the Trial Court and thereafter by the High Court in revision. It was argued before this Court that as Part X of the Companies Act cor.i.- tains special provisions for the \vinding up of unregistered companies including partnerships containing more than seven membe:rs, such partnerships can be wound up only in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Companies Act, and that the suit before the Senior Civil Judge was not maintainable. Dismissing the appeal by special. leave, the Court. HELD : The provisions for winding up of the affairs of a firm which Chapter VI of the Indian Partnership Act contains besides provisions for the dissolution of partnership, are left untouched by Section 590 of the Companies Act, 1956. Section 590 makes it clear that Part X of the Act does not affect the operation of other enactments providing for any partnership, association or com- pa·nY being wound up. [220H, 221 A] l'attada Authayya v. Pattada So1navya & Ors. AlR 1955 Mysore 149, partly over-ruled. - CIVIL APPELLATE 'JuRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 393 of 1977. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 8-10-1976 of the Bombay High Court in Civil Revision No. 137 /76. K. S. Ramamoorth)', S. Balakrishnan and N. N. Ghatate for the F Appellants. G H Naunit Lal, Miss Lalita Kohli and S. G. Ghate for Respondents Nos. 1 and 3 to 6. The Judgment of the. Court was delivered by GUPTA, J.-The two appellants and the six respondents were part- ners of a firm called "Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works." The appel- lants as plaintiffs instituted civil suit No. 9 d!j 1974 in the Court oe the Senior Civil Judge, Nagpur, for dissolution of the partnership and accounts. The reliefs asked for included a declaration that the firm stood dissolved on and from January 9, 1974. It appears that thereafter the original defendants who are the respondents Wfore us were transposed as plaintiffs and the appellants who were originally the plaintiffs were transferred to the category of defendants. The transposed defendants raised an objection that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions of Part X · ; VASANT RAO v. SHYAM RAO (Gupta, !.) 219 of the Companies Act, 1956. The trial court rejected the applica- A tion. The defendants then moved the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, in revision. The High Court having dismissed the revision petition the present appeal has been filed with special leave granted by this Court. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that as Part X of the Com- panies Act, 1956 contains special provisions for the winding up of unregistered companies, which expression as defined in that Act in- cludes a partnership consisting of more than seven members, any action for the winding up such a partnership· must be in accordance with the procedure prescribed for that purpose in the Companies Act, and the suit instituted in the court of the Senior Civil Judg~ was not maintainable. Part X of the Companies Act includes sections 582 to 590. Section 582 defines the expression "unregistered com- pany" a:s follows : Meaning of "unregistered Company". "For the purposes of this Part, the expression "unregistered com- pany"- (a) shall not include- (i) a railway company incorporated by any Act of Parliament or other Indian law or any Act of Parliament of 'the United Kingdom; (ii) a company registered und.er this Act; or (iii) a company registered under any previous com- panies law and not being a company the registe- red office wherWJ: was in Burma, Aden or Pakis- tan immediately before the separation of that country from India; and (b) save as aforesaid, shall include any partnership. association or company consisting of.more than seven members at the time when the petition for winding up the partnership, association or company, as the case may be, is presented before the Court." It is not disputed that the partnership in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.