P L D 1959﷓(W (PLP)

2. The defendant objected to the inadequacy of the Court, fee, but that objection is not of any importance now, as the plaintiff has made up the deficiency.

3. Mr. K. A. Chani, on behalf of the defendant, has opposed the application for the appointment of a receiver, but I should state here that the existence of partnership and the right of any partner to dissolve it after giving one month's notice are not denied. The plaintiff had given a notice dated the 2nd of July 1958, which contains the following communication :‑ " Please take notice that in terms of clause 19 of the above deed of partnership, 1 intend to dissolve the partnership subsisting between yourself and myself. This notice shall be deemed to be one month's notice as therein provided. In the circumstances the partnership shall have to be wound up in accordance with the provisions of the Partnership Act ".

4. Mr. Ghani has attacked this notice on the ground that it is vague and also on the ground that the date of the deed of partnership mentioned in the heading of the notice is wrong. It is true that the correct date of the partnership deed is the 30th of December 1949, and not the 10th of September 1949, as stated in the notice, but a wrong date which was not misunderstood does not affect the validity. of the notice. The mistake relates to the description of the partnership deed only. The plaintiff demanded dissolution explicitly although he started with ‑ a statement that he " intended " to dissolve the partnership. In the sentences which have followed the expression of the intention no doubt has been left that he wanted to dissolve the partnership. In this connection, Annexures A and C, attached to the Affidavit in Reply of the plaintiff dated the 29th of June 1959 make it clear that the defendant knew as to which partnership deed was in question and that the purpose was to dissolve the partnership. If the notice is valid, then the partnership stands dissolved and the consequence should be the appointment of a receiver as a matter of course.

5. Mr. Ghani has contended that the plaintiff has not alleged any mismanagement and that, unless there is an allega tion of mismanagement, a receiver should not be appointed lightly. This proposition has no application to the facts of the present case, because the plaintiff is admittedly entitled to dis solve the partnership if he followed the procedure as given in the partnership deed, and once he exercised his right, there cannot be any partnership against his will. In such circumstances, delay and obstructions in winding up the partnership business are themselves sufficient to warrant the appointment of a receiver.

6. This is an old partnership which was not at will for three years, but could be dissolved after that period by one month's notice. I think, prima facie the partnership has been dissolved and that the consequence of the dissolution should be the appointment of a receiver.

7. Mr. Ghani has contended that owing to an agreement arrived at between the parties dissolution can take place only by the sale of the share of the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff, according to Mr. Ghani, has resiled from the agreement, but that he is bound by it. I do not want to express my opinion regarding the alleged agreement, a draft of which only is alleged to have been prepared but that it was not executed finally by the parties. The contention of counsel needs to be considered at the time of deciding the mode of dissolution of partnership.

8. Mr. Naim for the plaintiff has suggested that a receiver should be appointed with power to take steps to utilise licences, but that the business should be closed down. Mr. Ghani, on the contrary, has suggested that the receiver should be authorised only 'to supervise the business which should be allowed to be done by the defendant until the decision of the suit. Mr. Maim has expressed a fear that, in the event of the business being allowed to be carried on by the defendant, goods might be under‑sold and that the defendant might be able to take undue advantage of the business without the receiver realising it. I do think that the receiver, who according to the parties should be the Official Assignee, will not be in a position to appreciate the possible advantages that may accrue to a party which is in control of the business and will not be able to effectively check or stop the accrual of such advantages. As I have come to the conclusion that a receiver should be appointed and as 1 think that prima facie the plaintiff's case is good for the dissolution of the partnership I see no reason why the business should be allowed to continue.

9. I appoint the Official Assignee to be the Receiver and empower him to take all steps that may be necessary for utilising licences, if any, and for saving the business from such harms as need to be avoided. The receiver will take possession of the partnership assets and prepare an inventory of the goods, articles and property of the partnership as well as of its account books and documents. The plaintiff will in the first instance pay the charges and expenses of the receiver and should deposit Rs. 3,000 tentatively. K. B. A. Order accordingly.