M V Ganesh Prasad v. M/S Ganesha and Co

NC:(2026:KHC:20265( CA(No.(72(of(2026( IN(COP(No.(47(of((1988( (, ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

THDATED(THIS(THE(10 (DAY(OF(APRIL,(2026(

BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(ANANT(RAMANATH(HEGDE( COMPANY(APPLICATION(NO.(72(OF(2026(( IN(( COMPANY(PETITION(NO.47((OF(1988( BETWEEN:(( ( M,V,GANESH,PRASAD,, AGED,ABOUT,70,YEARS,, RESIDING,AT,SRI,SHIVASHAKTHI,NILAYA,,, TILAK,PARK,ROAD,,VIJAYAPURA,EXTENSION,, CHIKMAGALUR-577101., …APPLICANT, (BY,SRI,M,V,GANESH,PRASAD,,(P.I.P),FOR,APPLICANT), AND:( (

1., M/S,GANESHA,AND,CO., LALITHA,PRASADAM,,, Digitally HOSAMANE,EXTENSION,,, signedtiby CHIKMAGALUR-577101., PRAMILA0G0V , Location:

2., SRI.,M.L.,VASUDEVA,MURTHY,,, HIGH0COURT SINCE,DEAD,BY,LR,OF ,KARNATAKA 2(a), M.V.,CHANDRASHEKHAR,,, AGED,ABOUT,85,YEARS,, RESIDING,AT,NO.,26/27,,SHUBAM,DREAMS, RD TH(SIRIDHAM),,3 ,CROSS,,7 ,,BLOCK,(WEST),,, K,R,ROAD,,JAYANAGAR,,BANGALORE-560070.,, ,

3., SMT,A.R,KAMALA,, W/O,A.R.,RAMASETTY,, AGED,ABOUT,87,YEARS,, RESIDING,AT,NO,425,,SRI,KAMAL,,OPP., NC:(2026:KHC:20265( CA(No.(72(of(2026( IN(COP(No.(47(of((1988( (, ,,HC-KAR( ( ( SEETHARAMA,KALYANA,MANTAPA,,DEVAMBA, AGRAHARA,,K.R.MOHALLA,,MYSORE-,570004., ,

4., T.R,SATHYALAKSHMI,, W/O,T.R.,RAMAPRASAD,,, AGED,ABOUT,79,YEARS,,, RESIDENT,OF,115/1,,SHARADAPRASAD,,, BULL,TEMPLE,ROAD,,NAGARAJA,LAYOUT,, CHAMARAJPET,,BANGALORE-560018.,, ,

5., B.N.GAYATHRI,, W/O,B.N,NATARAJ,,, AGED,ABOUT,77,YEARS,,, RESIDENT,AT,NO.,01,,,MAHALAKSHMI,NIVAS,, SHALIVANA,ROAD,,NAZARABAD,,, MYSORE-570010.,, ,

6., A.P,RUKMINI,, W/O,A.PARANJOTHI,,, AGED,ABOUT,75,YEARS,,, RESIDENT,OF,NO.,345,,1ST,FLOOR,,, 1ST,B,MAIN,,7TH,BLOCK,,JAYANAGAR,, BANGALORE-560070.,, ,

7., SMT.,V,GIRIJA,, W/O,V.SRINIVASAN,,, AGED,ABOUT,NO.,12,,, RAJARAJESHWARI,KRUPA,,33RD,CROSS,,, 11TH,MAIN,ROAD,,4TH,'T',BLOCK,,, JAYANAGAR,,BANGALORE-,560011.,, …RESPONDENTS, , (BY,SRI,G,MANIVANNAN,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R-2(A),&,R5,TO,R7), , , THIS,COMPANY,APPLICATION,,IS,FILED,UNDER,RULE,6, AND,9,OF,THE,COMPANIES,(COURT),RULES,,1959,READ,WITH, SECTION,151,,152,AND,153,OF,CPC,PRAYING,THIS,HON'BLE, COURT, TO, RECALL, THE, ORDER, PASSED, ON, COMPANY, APPLICATION, 244/09, DATED, 04.06.2009, UNDER, COMPANIES, RULES,UNDER,6,AND,9,OF,THE,COMPANIES,(COURT),RULES,,

1959 READ WITH SECTION 22 RULE 4 OF CPC FOR THE REASON STATED IN ANNEXED AFFIDAVIT IN ORDER TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICES.

THIS APPLICATION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

The application at C.A.No.72/2026 is filed to recall the order dated 04.06.2009. On an application filed by the applicant in CA No.244/2009, it is noticed that on 15.04.2011 the applications filed by the applicant in CA Nos.242/2009, 243/2009 and 244/2009 are allowed. The delay in filing the application to substitute the legal representative of deceased respondent No.2 is condoned. Abatement is set aside and proposed legal representative of deceased respondent No.2 is allowed to come on record.

¶2Learned applicant submits that, the order dated

04.06.2009 issuing notice to the proposed legal representative is illegal. The applicant submits that application to substitute the legal representative of deceased respondent No.2 is filed inadvertently without noticing the provisions of The Indian

Partnership Act, 1932. It is his submission that application need not be filed in case one of the partners dies and Clause 5 of the partnership deed would indicate that even after the death of one of the partners, the partnership would continue and remaining partners are already on record and there is no need to substitute the legal representative of deceased respondent No.2 who is one of the partners.

¶3Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2(a) would oppose the application on the premise that he has already come on record pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the year 2011 and it is too late to recall the order.

¶4The party-in-person would also submit that, the Division Bench of this Court in terms of orders dated

30.07.2009 and 30.03.2012 has rejected the application filed by respondent No.2(a) upon the death of respondent No.2 to come on record to contest the matter.

¶5The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

¶6The party-in-person has also produced the order dated 28.02.1997 in O.S.A. No.42/1995.

¶7The Court has also perused the partnership deed. The partnership deed provides that, the partnership will continue despite the death of one of the partners. However, the partnership deed is silent as to what will happen to the share of the deceased partner.

¶8Respondent No.2(a) is admittedly Clause-I heir of deceased partner and he is now brought on record. The remaining partners are also before this Court and they are not objecting to respondent No.2(a) to come on record as the legal representative of the deceased partner. The law relating to succession does operate notwithstanding the partnership deed produced by the applicant.

¶9The contention that Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not apply in such situation cannot be accepted. However, it is required to be noticed that respondent No.2(a) who is now allowed to come on record as the legal representative of the deceased partner is bound by the liability of the deceased

partner. To that extent the applicant's apprehension is taken care of.

¶10Accordingly, the C.A.No.72/2026 is rejected.

Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

GVP