Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal in Partnership Dispute Over Liquor Licence Succession — Legal Heirs Entitled to Claim Share in Partnership Assets Including Licence. The court held that the legal heirs of a deceased partner cannot be ousted from their rightful claim to partnership assets merely because the partnership deed disentitled them from becoming partners, and the liquor licence is an asset of the firm.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR
  • 151
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a dispute between the appellant, Arunkumar Dwarklal Jaiswal, proprietor of M/s Akot Wine Mart, and the respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and Smt. Kamlabai Gawande, the widow of a deceased partner. The firm was originally constituted in 1973 and reconstituted in 1978 with three partners: Vijaykumar Jaiswal, Arunkumar Jaiswal (appellant), and Dinkarrao Gawande. A fresh partnership deed was executed on 01.09.1992, which included a clause that on the death of a partner, the firm would not be dissolved, and legal heirs would be disentitled from claiming goodwill or rights. Dinkarrao Gawande died on 21.11.1994. The appellant contended that as per the deed, the legal heirs were not entitled to become partners, and the name of the deceased partner was deleted from the licence by the Collector's order dated 24.06.1996. However, the respondent no.3, Smt. Kamlabai Gawande, the widow, claimed that she was entitled to her husband's share in the partnership assets, including the liquor licence. The Collector initially allowed the deletion, but the State Excise Department later set aside that order, directing that the legal heirs be given notice. The appellant challenged this before the learned Single Judge, who dismissed the writ petition. The appellant then filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench. The court considered the legal issues regarding the rights of legal heirs upon the death of a partner, the nature of the liquor licence as partnership property, and the applicability of the Partnership Act. The court held that the legal heirs are entitled to the share of the deceased partner in the partnership assets, including the licence, and that the deletion of the name without notice was improper. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the order of the learned Single Judge.

Headnote

A) Partnership Law - Dissolution on Death - Section 42(c) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - On the death of a partner, the firm is dissolved unless there is a contract to the contrary. The partnership deed dated 01.09.1992 provided that the firm shall not be dissolved on death of a partner, but legal heirs were disentitled from claiming goodwill or rights. However, the court held that the legal heirs are entitled to the share of the deceased partner in the partnership assets, including the liquor licence, as the licence is an asset of the firm. (Paras 10-15)

B) Partnership Law - Rights of Legal Heirs - Section 37 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - Where a partner dies and the surviving partners continue the business, the legal heirs of the deceased partner are entitled to either a share of the profits or interest on the amount of the deceased partner's share. The court held that the legal heirs cannot be ousted from their rightful claim to the partnership assets merely because the partnership deed disentitled them from becoming partners. (Paras 16-20)

C) Excise Law - Transfer of Licence - Rule 8 of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 - The liquor licence is a privilege granted by the State and is not transferable without the consent of the licensing authority. However, the court held that the licence is an asset of the partnership firm and the legal heirs are entitled to claim their share in the licence as part of the partnership assets. The deletion of the deceased partner's name from the licence without notice to the legal heirs was held to be improper. (Paras 21-25)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the legal heirs of a deceased partner are entitled to claim rights in the partnership firm including the liquor licence, and whether the surviving partners can unilaterally delete the name of the deceased partner from the licence without consent of legal heirs.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.10.2009 is confirmed. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Partnership Act
  • 1932
  • Section 42(c) - dissolution on death of partner
  • Section 37 - rights of outgoing partner's estate
  • Section 14 - property of the firm
  • Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules
  • 1953 - Rule 8 - transfer of licence
  • Succession rights of legal heirs
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (BOM) (12) 121

Letters Patent Appeal No.510 of 2009

2022-12-02

A.S. Chandurkar, Urmila Joshi-Phalke

Shri A.T. Jadhavar, Shri I.D. Maniyar for appellant; Mrs. S.S. Jachak for respondent nos.1 & 2; Shri R.L. Khapre, Shri S.G. Wadyalkar for respondent no.3

Shri Arunkumar s/o Dwarklal Jaiswal

State of Maharashtra through Secretary, State Excise Department, The Collector, Akola, Smt. Kamlabai wd/o Dinkarrao Gawande

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against order of learned Single Judge confirming the order of the State Excise Department setting aside the deletion of deceased partner's name from liquor licence.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and the order of respondent no.1, and to uphold the deletion of the deceased partner's name from the licence.

Filing Reason

Appellant challenged the order of the learned Single Judge which upheld the order of the State Excise Department directing that legal heirs of the deceased partner be given notice before deletion of name from the licence.

Previous Decisions

The Collector allowed deletion of name on 24.06.1996; the State Excise Department set aside that order; the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 08.10.2009.

Issues

Whether the legal heirs of a deceased partner are entitled to claim rights in the partnership firm including the liquor licence? Whether the surviving partners can unilaterally delete the name of the deceased partner from the licence without consent of legal heirs?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that as per partnership deed, legal heirs are disentitled from claiming any rights, and the licence is a privilege not transferable without consent. Respondent no.3 argued that the licence is an asset of the firm and legal heirs are entitled to the share of the deceased partner.

Ratio Decidendi

The legal heirs of a deceased partner are entitled to the share of the deceased partner in the partnership assets, including the liquor licence, as the licence is an asset of the firm. The deletion of the deceased partner's name from the licence without notice to the legal heirs is improper.

Judgment Excerpts

On the death of a partner, the firm is dissolved unless there is a contract to the contrary. The legal heirs are entitled to the share of the deceased partner in the partnership assets, including the liquor licence.

Procedural History

The Collector allowed deletion of deceased partner's name on 24.06.1996. The State Excise Department set aside that order. The appellant filed Writ Petition No.2122 of 2002, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 08.10.2009. The appellant then filed Letters Patent Appeal No.510 of 2009 before the Division Bench, which was dismissed on 02.12.2022.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Partnership Act, 1932: Section 42(c), Section 37, Section 14
  • Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953: Rule 8
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Remand Order in Tribal Land Restoration Case — Sale Deed Valid as Parties Were Not Scheduled Tribes at Time of Transfer. Status of being Scheduled Tribe must exist at time of transfer; subsequent r...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows State Appeal in Grant-in-Aid for Non-Teaching Staff Dispute. Rule 115(3) of Bombay Primary Education Act, 1949 Applies Only to Educational Bodies or Associations Conducting Multiple Schools; Denial to Single School Not Violative ...