Shyam Sunder Shaw vs Netai Chand Shaw
- SCC(1987) 3 SCC 461
- AIRAIR 1987 SC 1421
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal against the preliminary decree for dissolution of the partnership firm and rendition of accounts is dismissed on the concurrent findings of three courts regarding both questions of fact and evidence and questions of law, which findings the appellate court found unimpressed with and therefore not warranted interference. In proceedings for final decree following dissolution of a partnership firm, the court should impose safeguards to protect the interests of a partner who depends on the partnership business as his sole source of livelihood, particularly where there is inequality in the bargaining position between the partners, and should endeavor to ensure that such a partner does not lose possession of the property used for the business pending settlement of accounts. A party ordered to deposit funds in court as a condition of relief may be permitted to withdraw those funds and place them instead in a fixed deposit with a nationalized bank to preserve their availability for payment of amounts that may become due upon settlement of accounts.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent. The appellant challenges the concurrent finding entered against him by three Courts. We are not impressed with the submission made on the questions of fact and evidence, nor on the question of law. The appeal has, therefore, only to be dismissed and we do so.
2. The appellant submits that the partnership business in Bakery is the only source of his livelihood, that the respondent is a new entrant having secured the right of his former partner, that the building in which the Bakery is housed belongs to the Railways, that he lives in one portion of the building and uses the remaining portion for the Bakery and that he should not be denied his source of livelihood ultimately,
3. The present appeal is against the preliminary decree passed in a snit for dissolution of the firm and rendition of accounts. We feel that the submissions made by the appellant has to be considered sympathetically. It was this sympathy that prevailed upon this Court when an order was made on 21-7-1986, directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- which he has done. We think it necessary to make some observation in the interest of justice and to protect the appellant from a more influential person like the respondent in an unequal fight.
4. We would like to observe that in the final decree proceedings care will be taken to see that the appellant does not lose the building. After the accounts are settled and the amount payable on either side determined, necessary safe-guards will have to be made to protect the interest of the appellant. We hope and trust that the Railways to whom the land is said to belong will also see that the Railways to whom the land is said to belong will also see that the appellant is not deprived of this building. These are our observations in the peculiar facts of this case, which we trust will receive due consideration at the hands of the Court and the Railway authorities.
5. the appellant will be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by him in this Court as per order dated 21-7-1986, and to deposit the same in a nationalized Bank in fixed deposit, lest he should find it difficult to raise the money when, on settlement of accounts. Amounts become payable.
6. There will be no order as to costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free