Firm-name litigation, non-appealable arbitration opinion, and trade mark use pending accounts shape the dispute resolution framework.

Where a suit and appeal are prosecuted in a firm name, Order 30 Rule 4 prevents abatement on the death of a partner, so the omission to implead the deceased partner's legal representatives does not defeat the appeal. An opinion returned by a court on a special case under the first part of Section 13(b) of the Arbitration Act is only consultative for the arbitrators, does not finally determine parties' rights, and is not independently appealable under Article 136. In the trade mark dispute, the injunction was modified because the marks were treated as partnership assets and the appellants could not be wholly barred from use pending accounts and resolution of rights.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal abated on the death of one partner when the suit and appeal were prosecuted in the firm name. (ii) Whether an opinion given by the court on a special case under the first part of Section 13(b) of the Arbitration Act was appealable. (iii) Whether the injunction restraining the appellants from using the trade marks was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal abated on the death of one partner when the suit and appeal were prosecuted in the firm name.

Analysis: The proceedings were brought and the injunction operated against the partners in the names of the firms. Order 30 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits a suit to be continued in the firm name and provides that the death of a partner does not require his legal representatives to be joined. The rule applies to appeals as well, and the omission to implead the deceased partner's legal representatives did not attract abatement.

Conclusion: The appeal did not abate.

Issue (ii): Whether an opinion given by the court on a special case under the first part of Section 13(b) of the Arbitration Act was appealable.

Analysis: The reference under the first part of Section 13(b) was only for guidance of the arbitrators and did not finally determine the rights of the parties. The statutory scheme distinguished such a consultative opinion from matters that became part of the award, and the provision allowing appeal from an order on an award stated in the form of a special case did not extend to an opinion under the first part of Section 13(b). The opinion was therefore not a judgment, decree, determination, or order within Article 136.

Conclusion: No appeal lay from the opinion and the special leave appeals on that point were incompetent.

Issue (iii): Whether the injunction restraining the appellants from using the trade marks was justified.

Analysis: The notices of dissolution raised a prima facie case that the trade marks, as partnership assets, could not be exclusively appropriated by the surviving partners to the exclusion of the legal representatives of the deceased partner. The appellants, being entitled to the deceased partner's share, could not be restrained absolutely from using the marks during the pendency of the dispute. At the same time, accounts had to be maintained by both sides to protect the subject matter of the suit.

Conclusion: The injunction was modified and the appellants were permitted to use the trade marks subject to rendition of accounts.

Final Conclusion: The appeal against the injunction succeeded in part, the arbitration-related appeals failed, and the contempt petition was rejected, leaving only a limited modification of the injunction in favour of the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a suit or appeal is prosecuted in the firm name, Order 30 Rule 4 prevents abatement on the death of a partner, and an opinion returned by a court on a special case under the first part of Section 13(b) of the Arbitration Act is only consultative and not independently appealable.

---