Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PARKASH CHAND & ORS versus CHARANJIT LAL

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Parkash Chand & Ors v. Charanjit Lal - RSA-2885-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 10199 (9 November 2006)

R.S.A.No.2885 of 2006. [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

R.S.A.No.2885 of 2006.

Date of decision : 13.11.2006

Parkash Chand and others .....Appellants versus

Charanjit Lal .....Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.
Present : Mr.Ashok Gupta, Advocate for the appellants -.-

JUDGMENT

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (oral)

The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the final decree passed by the Courts below on the basis of a report of the Local Commissioner, dated 7.6.1993.

In pursuance of the preliminary decree for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts of partnership business, passed by the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, dated 27.10.1983, a Local Commissioner was appointed for taking the accounts of the income, assets and property of the partnership firm. The Local Commissioner in its report dated 7.6.1993 found that the plaintiff is entitled to profit from April, 1978 to July, 1980 and the share of machinery sold Rs.3555/- and plaintiff being tenant of the premises is entitled to the premises with fixtures on it. The plaintiff was also entitled Rs.5000/- per year from July, 1980 to July, 1990.

The District Judge while considering the objections against the report of the Local Commissioner, found that the partnership stood dissolved from the date of institution of the suit i.e. 30.7.1980 and plaintiff R.S.A.No.2885 of 2006. [2]

is entitled to rendition of accounts from April, 1977 to 30.7.1980 and the report granting Rs.5000/- per year after July, 1980 was found to be against the preliminary decree of the learned District Judge. Therefore, in terms of the decree passed, rendition of accounts are to be rendered from April, 1977 to 30.7.1980.

Since the report of the Local Commissioner has been accepted to the extent stated above, I do not find any illegally or irregularity in the finding recorded by the Courts below, which may raise any substantial question of law in the second appeal, for consideration of this Court.

Dismissed in limine.

13.11.2006 (HEMANT GUPTA)

*mohinder JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.