Skip to content


Deep Chand Gobind Ram Asnani Vs. Union of India - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 2813 of 1979
Judge
Reported inAIR1981SC1635; 1981Supp(1)SCC51; 1980(12)LC416(SC)
AppellantDeep Chand Gobind Ram Asnani
RespondentUnion of India
Excerpt:
- indian partnership act, 1932 section 69 (2a) (as inserted by maharashtra act (29 of 1984): [markandey katju & g.s.singhvi, jj] validity suit for dissolution of unregistered firm - restrictions under section 69(2a) held, the maharashtra amendment effects such stringent disabilities on a firm as are crippling in nature. it lays down that an unregistered firm cannot enforce its claims against third parties. similarly, a partner who is not registered is unable to enforce his claims against third parties or against his fellow partners. an exception to this disability was a suit for dissolution of a firm or a suit for accounts of a dissolved firm or a suit for recovery of property of a dissolved firm. thus a partnership firm can come into existence, function as long as there is no..........has already received the same by withdrawal from the trial court.2. in exercise of our jurisdiction to award costs and having regard to the equities of the situation and in the circumstances of the case, we make a direction that the appellant be paid by the state a sum of rs. 10,000- by way of costs. this sum will be deposited in three months from today. the appellant will have no more claim whatever. the appeal is disposed of as above.
Judgment:

V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.

1. This appeal which had been heard at some length ended up at a certain stage by a suggestion from the Court to the State to take a realistic view of the situation apart from the merits of the matter. A sum of Rs. 50.000/- had been deposited in the trial Court by the State when a decree was passed against it and in favour of the appellant. This sum was withdrawn by the appellant although the decree itself was reversed by the High Court. In this Court, the appellant put forward many contentions which were contested by the State respondent. At the end of it all, we felt that without detailed consideration of the merits of the matter and having regard to the fact that the appellant was absolutely indigent, the Government may allow the appellant to keep a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in full settlement of all his claim including pensionary and other retrial benefits. Counsel for the state Shri Lalit today represents that the State has given respectful consideration to the Court's suggestion and his persuasion and has accepted the direction that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- be paid to the appellant in full. This sum need not be paid now because it has already been withdrawn by the appellant. Thus we direct that the appellant be entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in full settlement of all his claims and that the State need not pay any amount because the appellant has already received the same by withdrawal from the trial Court.

2. In exercise of our jurisdiction to award costs and having regard to the equities of the situation and in the circumstances of the case, we make a direction that the appellant be paid by the State a sum of Rs. 10,000- by way of costs. This sum will be deposited in three months from today. The appellant will have no more claim whatever. The appeal is disposed of as above.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //