TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (11) TMI 377
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tituted Suit No. 46/69/B/in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao for dissolution and accounts against three defendants, Xembu Purshotam Nagvenkar, Krishna Pandurong Nagvenkar and Sadashiv Nagvenkar. The plaintiffs claimed that the company was constituted by deed dated May 1, 1950, under the provisions of the law of Sociedades por Quotas of 1901 under the name and style of " Nagvenkar and Company ". This company, which is equivalent to a partnership firm under the Partnership Act or private limited company under the Companies Act, consisted of the plaintiffs and the defendants as members. The defendants together held 12¾ annas interest in the company while the remaining belonged to the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1 held....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fendant No. 2, inter alia, claiming that on the death of defendant No. 2, the suit abates and it is not permissible for the plaintiffs to seek a declaration and accounts in the present suit. According to the legal representatives of defendant No. 2, they were brought on record not in their capacity as members of the company but merely as legal representatives of the deceased member. The trial judge was impressed by the defence and by order dated December 16, 1987, dismissed the application for amendment on the ground that it is untenable in law. The legal representatives of defendant No. 2 have filed a revision application No. 18 of 1988 to challenge certain observations made by the trial court while dismissing the application filled by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lved and the entire assets of the company are in possession of the legal representatives of defendant No. 2. The plaintiffs claim that it is desirable that the liquidator should take possession of the assets and determine the liabilities and thereafter distribute the assets according to the shares. The application was resisted by the legal representatives of defendant No. 2 on the ground that the application for appointment of liquidator is not maintainable as the suit had abated. It is also claimed that the proper remedy of the plaintiffs is to institute a fresh civil suit. The trial judge, by order dated January 6, 1988 turned the defence and appointed Mr. Mungrey, Chartered Accountant, as the liquidator with a direction to ascertain the ....