- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ms. Pamela P. Braganza v. Finlay Braganza
Factual and Procedural Background
The case involves a partnership firm, M/s. Rustom Wines, holding an FL-II licence under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The firm had two partners: Mr. Peter Braganza (60% share) and his daughter Pamela Peter Braganza (40% share). Upon Mr. Peter Braganza's death on 9.5.2002, he left a will dated 29.4.2002 bequeathing his 60% share such that the second respondent would hold 40%, the petitioner 30%, and respondent no.1 30% in the partnership. Respondent no.1 applied to have his name included in the liquor licence, contending entitlement based on his share. The Collector initially suspended the licence pending resolution of disputes, but this suspension was overturned on appeal by the Commissioner of State Excise, who held that the licence should not be suspended and disputes resolved by a competent court. Subsequently, the Minister in revision reinstated the suspension, setting aside the appellate order. The present writ petition challenges this revisional order suspending the licence.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the legal heir of a deceased partner can compel inclusion as a partner in a partnership firm and consequently in the liquor licence on the basis of a Will.
- Whether the authority was justified in suspending the liquor licence of the partnership firm due to disputes regarding the deceased partner’s share.
- The proper legal remedy for a legal heir claiming a share in a partnership firm upon the death of a partner.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent no.1's Arguments
- Respondent no.1 claimed entitlement to be a partner in M/s. Rustom Wines based on the Will executed by the deceased partner, Mr. Peter Braganza.
- He sought rectification of the liquor licence to include his name as a partner, asserting his share in the licence.
- He contended that the licence should reflect his entitlement as per the Will.
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner argued that partnership does not devolve by Will; only the share in the partnership can be bequeathed.
- On death of a partner, the firm dissolves, and the surviving partner becomes the sole proprietor unless otherwise agreed.
- The legal heir cannot force inclusion as a partner without agreement or prior provision in the partnership deed.
- The proper remedy is to claim the share by dissolution and seek accounts, not to suspend the licence or compel partnership.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court noted that the partnership firm dissolved upon the death of Mr. Peter Braganza, making the surviving partner, Pamela Peter Braganza, the sole proprietor. It emphasized the settled legal principle that partnership rights cannot be transferred by Will; only the deceased partner’s share can be inherited. The legal heir cannot compel inclusion as a partner without the surviving partner’s consent or a prior agreement. The court found the Collector’s order suspending the licence due to the dispute over the deceased partner’s share to be invalid and perverse, and the revisional order upholding the suspension equally bad in law. The court held that the respondent no.1’s remedy lies in initiating appropriate legal proceedings before a competent court to claim his share, rather than seeking suspension of the licence. The court accordingly quashed and set aside the impugned orders but allowed a four-week period for the respondent no.1 to initiate legal action if desired.
Holding and Implications
The writ petition is disposed of by quashing and setting aside the revisional order suspending the liquor licence of M/s. Rustom Wines.
The direct consequence is that the licence suspension order is invalidated, allowing the firm to continue its business uninterrupted. The respondent no.1 is directed to pursue his claim through appropriate legal proceedings before a competent court rather than through administrative suspension of the licence. No new legal precedent was established; the decision reaffirms established principles regarding partnership dissolution and inheritance of partnership shares.
Advocates appeared :
Mr. A. K. ABHYANKAR with P. S. DANI, for Petitioner.
Mr. R. V. BANSODE, for Respondent no.1.
Mr. C. S. BALSARA with H. N. VAKIL i /by M/s. Mulla & Mulla & C.B.C. for respondent no. 2.
Mr. C. R. SONAWANE, AGP ., for Respondent Nos.3 to 5.
:- The present writ petition was on Board before me on 28.11.2005 and 29.11.2005 when the matter was heard at length. After hearing the matter at length it was proposed that the matter can be settled and draft consent terms were prepared. However, on 30.11.2005 when the matter was called out, the respondent no.1 has changed the advocate and now the advocate seeks to reargue the matter. In view of the fact that the matter was fully heard, I have declined to give him permission to reargue the matter. It is because merely by change of advocates the party cannot have a fresh round of arguments in the matter. It is also because it is not desirable to encourage such a kind of practice by which after the hearing of the matter the lawyers are changed for the purpose of arguments. In view thereof, I proceed with the passing of the order as under.
2. The facts in the present case are not in dispute and for the purpose of the present writ petition they are briefly enumerated as under :-
3. A partnership firm, namely, M/s. Rustom Wines is holder of FL-II licence issued under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The said firm was a partnership firm and had two partners one Mr. Peter Braganza and the daughter Pamela Peter Braganza. Both the partners,namely Peter Braganza had 60% share and Pamela Braganza had 40% share in the said partnership. However, the liquor licence issued by the authority under the Bombay Prohibition Act was not in the name of the partners but in the name of the partnership firm. There is also no dispute that the said Peter Braganza expired on 9.5.2002. The said Peter Braganza on his death left behind a will dated 29.4.2002 under which he bequeathed his share in the partnership of 60% by conferring the same in such a manner that on his death the second respondent would have 40% share. The petitioner will have 30% share and the respondent no. 1 Will have 30% share in the said partnership firm. After the death of Peter Braganza the said respondent no.1 applied to the authorities for inclusion of his name in the said liquor licence. He has contended before the authority that he has the share in the said licence and, therefore, the licence must be rectified. On the said application, the authority i.e. the Collector at the first instance passed an order on 17.7.2003 that till and until the disputes are resolved by an appropriate Court of competent jurisdiction the said licence to remain suspended against which an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of State Excise and in the appeal by an order dated 28.7.2003 the said appeal was allowed inter alia holding that the Collector could not have suspended the licence but parties must resolve their dispute in a court of competent jurisdiction and a legal heir is not entitled to stop the business of the firm M/s. Rustom Wines. However, the respondent no. 1 thereafter preferred a revision before the Minister and the Minister by a revisional order once again suspended the licence and set aside the order of the appellate court and the order of the Collector suspending the licence has been confirmed.
4. It is this order passed in revision which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.
5. In myopinion, admittedly there were two partners of M/s. Rustom Wines. On the death of said Mr. Peter Braganza on 9.5.2002 the partnership firm has stood dissolved and the firm of M/s. Rustom Wines became the sole proprietary concern by the sole surviving partner Ms. Pamela Peter Braganza. It is now well settled that partnership is an agreement between the parties to carry on business jointly and no party can impose on another party a partner to run a business. The contention which has been advanced before me by the respondent no.1 that the respondent no.1 is entitled to be a partner in the partnership firm of M/s. Rustom Wines on the basis of the Will which has been executed in favour of the petitioner, cannot be accepted because the partner cannot devolve a partnership in a firm on the basis of a Will. What can be devolved by the deceased partner by the will is his share in the partnership firm. Thus, unless the surviving partner or partners agree to accept the legal heirs to whom the share has been bequeathed either on testate or intestate succession of the deceased partner as a partner in the firm or the partnership agreement during the life time of the deceased partner provides that on his death his particular legal heir will be added as a partner in the partnership firm, a person merely succeeding to the estate of the deceased cannot force the other partner to be joined in a partnership firm. A deceaseds legal heir is entitled to his share by claiming dissolution of his share as on the date of the death of the partner and entitled to his right, title and interest in the said partnership firm by claiming the amount and seeking accounts of the said firm. However, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 has contended that he should be made a partner in the partnership firm of M/s. Rustom Wines and thus his name should be added in the liquor licence which has been issued to the firm under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. In my opinion, no such order can be passed. The Collectors order suspending the licence merely because one of the legal heirs of the deceased partner has raised dispute pertaining to the estate of the deceased is per se not valid and the same is perverse. The order passed by the Revisional Authority upholding the order of the Collector is also bad in law. In my opinion, the remedy of the respondent no.1 is not to move the authority for suspension of the licence but it is open to him to adopt appropriate proceedings before the competent court demanding his share by virtue of the Will in the said partnership firm. In my opinion, it is not permissible to suspend the business of any person merely on the issue that some person is entitled to the estate of the said deceased unless a suit for dissolution of accounts and claiming the interest and share in the estate of the deceased is filed and appropriate order is passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Thus, in my opinion, the order under challenge is unsustainable in law and is required to be quashed and set aside. However, I direct the parties to maintain status quo for a period of four weeks from today so as to enable the respondent no.1, if he so desires, to adopt any legal proceedings in the matter as he may be advised. The petition disposed of accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Order accordingly.
Alert