1983 (7) TMI 276

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....an for Respondent. JUDGMENT M.P. Chandra Kantaraj Urs, J.-This petition was admitted after hearing the parties on April 20, 1982. On that date, there was no dispute between the parties regarding the jurisdiction of this court to entertain this petition. However, having regard to the contentions raised in Company Petition No. 4 of 1982, paper publication was deferred. That is evidenced by the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as again raised the question of jurisdiction of this court to proceed with the winding up of the company and that the more appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to pursue proceedings in the proper civil court having jurisdiction to complete the dissolution of the firm. That the firm has dissolved itself is not in dispute. It is Mr. Krishna Murthy's argument that this court should not exerci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion of the Supreme Court, the matter agitated before that court was that a suit for dissolution of a partnership firm consisting of more than 7 persons could not be in a civil court and the proper forum was only the company court as it was a deemed company. That proposition was negatived by the Supreme Court. It was held that a suit also was maintainable under the Partnership Act. The two decis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the partners or other persons who have formed themselves into an association of persons answering to the description of "deemed companies" under the Act to settle their mutual rights as well as public interest if it is involved. It may be in some cases such companies may owe debts to third parties creditors whose interest also is to be safeguarded instead of driving them to civil litigation. I....