Tripura High Court
Sri Nirode Chandra Das vs M/S Rajlaxmi Bricks Industries ... on 8 August, 2023
Page 1 of 2
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRP No.39 of 2023
Sri Nirode Chandra Das
.........Petitioner(s)
Versus
M/s Rajlaxmi Bricks Industries and others
.........Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Deb, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Abir Baran, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : None.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
Order
08/08/2023
Petitioner has approached this Court since the prayer for
correction of the decree in terms of the judgment dated 07.06.2022 rendered
by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), South Tripura, Belonia in
Title Suit No.05 of 2014 has been rejected by the learned Court below by the
impugned order dated 06.06.2023.
Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has
pointed to the findings of the learned Court on Issue No.(iv) and (viii) which
is as under:
"Issue No. (iv):- Is the plaintiff entitled to get proportionate
share of fixed/immovable assets and movable assets of the Firm as
per ratio of the plaintiff after dissolution?
Issue No. (viii):- Is the Partnership Firm under the name
and style as "M/S. Rajlaxmi Bricks Industries" liable to be
dissolved, if so, what shall be the share of the plaintiff and the
defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in the capital, assets and liabilities of the
Partnership Firm as on the date of dissolution?"
Findings
"[40] It is seen that the business of the partnership firm was closed
w.e.f. 30.06.2012 and all accessories relating to manufacturing and
burning of bricks have been lifted by the defendants and there is no
possibility of reopening the partnership business. For the interest of all
the partners, both the plaintiff and defendants wants the partnership
firm to dissolve. The DW-1, who is one of the partner also stated in his
examination-in-chief that defendants have no objection to dissolve the
firm as prayed by the plaintiff. The share of the plaintiff in the profit
and loss of the business carried out by the partnership is 20% and that
of defendant No.2 is 44.98%, defendant No.3 is 25%, defendant No.4
is 10%, defendant No.5 is 0.02% and it has been mentioned in the
Deed of Partnership marked as Exbt.1 Series. So, the plaintiff and
defendants will have to share the profit and loss of the business of the
firm as per the share mentioned in the Deed of Partnership after
dissolution of the firm. The plaintiff dissolve and the statement of
accounts and audit report shall be prepared afresh by a competent
Chartered Accountant relying on the actual documents of the firm and
on the basis of Statement of Accounts and Audited Reports, the
plaintiff is entitled to get his share in the business of the firm as per the
terms and condition of the Deed of Partnership. So, issue No.(iv) and
(viii) are decided in favour of the plaintiff."
He submits that the operative portion of the judgment has not incorporated
the effective determination on issue No.(iv) and (viii) and that is why, the
decree also does not contain the proportionate apportionment of the shares of
the plaintiff and other parties in the dissolved partnership firm.
However, it appears that internal page No.38 of the judgment is
missing from the Court's record.
Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, therefore,
seeks time to supply the relevant page.
The matter is adjourned to 16.08.2023.
(APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Pijush
MUNNA SAHA Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA
Date: 2023.08.09 17:26:57 +05'30'
