YELCHURI RANGANAYAKALU CHETTY AND ANR. Vs. K. GOPALA CHETTY
LAWS(MAD)-1952-10-31
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on October 03,1952

Yelchuri Ranganayakalu Chetty And Anr. Appellant
VERSUS
K. Gopala Chetty Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ramaswami, J. - (1.) THIS is an application for stay of trial of C.C. No. 8277 of 1952 on the file of the 8th Presidency Magistrate, George Town, Madras, pending disposal of C. S. No. 158 of 1952 on the file of the High Court oh the original side.
(2.) THE facts are: The two petitioners before us Y. Ranganayakalu Chetty and Doraisami Ay y an gar constituted a partnership along with the respondent K. Gopala Chetty & K. Lakshminarayana Chetty and K. Satyanarayana Chetty under the style and name of Sri C. P. V. Kotiah Chetty and Company, carrying on business as commission agents in pulses, coriander, chillies, etc. at No. 21, Chinnathambi Mudali Street, George Town, Madras. The partnership agreement is dated 25 -7 -1951. It provides that each of these petitioners is to contribute Rs. 25,000/ - and the partners were to share the profits in the following proportion: the first petitioner 0 -5 -9, the second petitioner 0 -5 -3, the complainant 0 -3 -0, Lakshminarayana Chetty 0 -4 -0 and Satyanarayana 0 -2 -6, out of a total of 1 -4 -6. The agreement also provided that no partner shall be at liberty to draw any amount which would reduce at any time the amount to his credit in the firm to less than the amount of the capital subscribed by him. The actual working of the partnership was in the hands of Ranganayakalu Chetty and Doraisami Ayyangar. The complainant, Lakshminarayana Chetty, and Satyanarayana Chetty were advancing considerable capital. Therefore the complainant and the two others were alone given the power to operate on the bank accounts, to accept cheques etc. for and on behalf of the partnership while Ranganayakalu Chetty and Doraisami Ayyangar had no such right. There was a further stipulation that while the complainant and the two ethers could carry on other businesses apart from the partnership business, the petitioners could not do so. It is in these circumstances that this partnership came to grief in 1952.
(3.) IN regard to this partnership coming to be on the rocks and which has given rise to the criminal complaint and the suit, two opposing versions are given;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.