{"id":80163,"date":"2010-04-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-partnership-act-vs-2-shri-v-l-kamble-on-30-april-2010"},"modified":"2017-10-04T11:16:32","modified_gmt":"2017-10-04T05:46:32","slug":"indian-partnership-act-vs-2-shri-v-l-kamble-on-30-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-partnership-act-vs-2-shri-v-l-kamble-on-30-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Indian Partnership Act vs 2 Shri V.L. Kamble on 30 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Indian Partnership Act vs 2 Shri V.L. Kamble on 30 April, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: Anoop V.Mohta<\/div>\n
    wp2095.98.sxw                                      1\n\n                    IN THE  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n                          APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                       \n                           WRIT PETITION NO. 2095 OF 1998 \n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n    Shri G.B. Hingurani, Partner,\n    M\/s. Fashion Apparels, a \n    Partnership firm registered under the\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n    Indian Partnership Act, having\n    its establishment at Plot No.53\/3,\n    Marol MIDC, Street No.7, \n    Mahakali Caves Road,\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n    Andheri (E),\n    Mumbai-400 093.             ig                                      ....Petitioner.\n\n\n              Vs.\n                              \n    1         Mr. Vinayak Narayan Govekar,\n              a citizen of India residing at\n              Patel Wadi, Badam Chawl,\n          \n\n\n              Room No.18, G.D. Ambedkar Marg,\n       \n\n\n\n              Parel Village,\n              Mumbai-400 012.\n\n    2         Shri V.L. Kamble,\n\n\n\n\n\n              Member, Industrial Court,\n              having its Court at \n              7th Floor, Arun Chjambers, \n              Tardeo, \n              Mumbai-400 034.                                           ....Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n\n    Mr.   R.S.   Pai,   with   Ms.   Pallavi   Dedna   i\/by   Mr.   Sanjay   Udeshi   for   the \n    Petitioner.\n    Mr. Mayur D. Nagle for Respondent No.1. \n\n\n                                   CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                    DATE    :  30th April, 2010\n\n    ORAL JUDGMENT:-\n\n\n\n                                                               ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:54:34 :::<\/span>\n     wp2095.98.sxw                                          2<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n    1         Admittedly, earlier Complaint (ULP) No. 743 of 1991, filed by the \n\n\n\n\n                                                                                           \n<\/pre>\n
    Bombay Labour Union, Bombay was disposed of for none prosecution as <\/p>\n
    settled out of the Court.  It is observed in paragraph No.11, while passing <\/p>\n
    the impugned order, by the Industrial Court, Mumbai dated 18\/03\/1998 <\/p>\n
    that except one workmen, all the workmen have accepted their legal dues <\/p>\n
    from the Company and the said workman is the present complainant. The <\/p>\n
    learned  Judge,  therefore,  as   there   was  no  liberty  relevant  to  agitate   the <\/p>\n
    issue again being unconditional withdrawal order, has passed the impugned <\/p>\n
    order.\n<\/p>\n
    2         Admittedly,   except   the   Complainant,   all   the   other   workers   have <\/p>\n
    settled the matter and accepted the legal dues, knowing fully the effect of <\/p>\n
    the closure. In my view, the relationship of the employer and the employees <\/p>\n
    is always on a foundation of a contract.  Having once accepted this contract, <\/p>\n
    it means all the conditions also.   Therefore, after obtaining the benefits, <\/p>\n
    almost   of   the   members   accepted   the   legal   dues,   knowing   fully   the <\/p>\n
    consequences of the same, there is no case to permit one worker to agitate <\/p>\n
    the issue of closure and all actions by filing such complaint, merely because <\/p>\n
    he had not accepted the legal dues with others.  In the Industrial and labour <\/p>\n
    matters,   it   is   difficult   to   have   dispute   settlement   all   the   time   by   total <\/p>\n
    consent and\/or total acceptance of terms and conditions by all the workers, <\/p>\n
    the   same   objections   are   always   there.   However,   having   once   filed   the <\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:54:34 :::<\/span>
\n     wp2095.98.sxw                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
    complaint through the Union at the relevant time, of which the complainant <\/p>\n
    was also a member, they accepted the terms and accordingly the complaint <\/p>\n
    was disposed of for non-prosecution as settled out of the Court.  It is not the <\/p>\n
    case that the settlement withdrawn for any reason. The submission is made <\/p>\n
    upon   the   action   of   closure   of   the   Petitioner   on   merits,   referring   to   the <\/p>\n
    amendments in the Complainant.   In my view, it is necessary to see that <\/p>\n
    such  labour  disputes   must  be   settled,  as   early  as   possible.  If   the   parties <\/p>\n
    entered into the agreement and\/or settlement and proceed accordingly  and <\/p>\n
    basically acted upon the same by majority of the workers, as well as, the <\/p>\n
    employers, I see there is no reason now to permit such Complainant to re-\n<\/p>\n
    agitate the closure issue on merits. If the Complainant had accepted the <\/p>\n
    similar terms the matter could have end then and there only.   In totality, <\/p>\n
    therefore, such agitation by one person by challenging the closure action of <\/p>\n
    Management   and   the   Court   also   permitting   to   agitate   the   same   without <\/p>\n
    deciding   the   preliminary   objection   about   the   maintainability   of   the <\/p>\n
    complaint, goes to the root of the matter.\n<\/p>\n
    3         Apart from above, as so called binding settlement was well within the <\/p>\n
    framework of  law and  the   record and  as  the   parties   have  already  acted <\/p>\n
    upon,   unless   it   is   re-agitated   on   the   ground   of   fraud   and\/or <\/p>\n
    misrepresentation, which is not the case here, it needs to be respected for <\/p>\n
    all the purpose, therefore, the complaint is not entertainable. This Court in <\/p>\n
    Writ Petition No. 2670 of 2002, Maharashtra Kamgar Sangharsh Samiti  <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:54:34 :::<\/span>
\n     wp2095.98.sxw                                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
    & Anr. Vs. Horizon, the Beach Hotel & Ors. (Coram:-D.G. Karnik, J.) in <\/p>\n
    paragraph Nos.10, 11 and 12, has considered various such aspects referring <\/p>\n
    to order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “C.P.C.”) as <\/p>\n
    under:-\n<\/p>\n
              “10. I am fortified in my view by the decision of the Supreme
\n              Court rendered in Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport
\n              Appellate Tribunal, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 5.  In paragraph
\n              no.7 of the judgment, the Supreme Court observed:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    “In  order  to  prevent   a litigant  from   abusing   the  <\/p>\n
                    process of the court by instituting suits again and
\n                    again   on   the   same   cause   of   action   without   any
\n                    good reason the Code insists that he should obtain  <\/p>\n
                    the permission of the court to file a fresh suit after
\n                    establishing either of the two grounds mentioned
\n                    in   sub-rule   (3)   of   Rule   1   of   Order   XXIII.   The
\n                    principle underlying the above rule is founded on  <\/p>\n
                    public policy, but it is not the same as the rule of
\n                    res judicata contained in Section 11 of the Code  <\/p>\n
                    which provides that no court shall try any suit or
\n                    issue in which the matter directly or substantially
\n                    in issue has been directly or substantially in issue
\n                    in   a   former   suit   between   the   same   parties,   or  <\/p>\n
                    between parties under whom they or any of them
\n                    claim, litigating under the same title, in a court
\n                    competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in
\n                    which such issue has been subsequently raised, and
\n                    has been heard and finally decided by such court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    The rule of res judicata applies to a case where the
\n                    suit or an issue has already been heard and finally
\n                    decided by such court.  In the case of abandonment
\n                    or withdrawal of a suit without the  permission of
\n                    the   court   to   file   a   fresh   suit,   there   is   no   prior
\n                    adjudication of a suit or an issue is involved, yet
\n                    the Code provides, as stated earlier, that a second
\n                    suit will not lie in sub-rule(4) of Rule 1 of Order
\n                    XXIII of the Code when the first suit is withdrawn
\n                    without the permission referred to in sub-rule (3)  <\/p>\n
                                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:54:34 :::<\/span>
\n     wp2095.98.sxw                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
                     in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the
\n                     Court.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              11. The principle in the Sarguja Transport Service (Supra)
\n              was again affirmed by the Supreme Court in a later decision in
\n              Upadhyay & Co. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in 1991(1)  <\/p>\n
              S.C.C. 81, after affirming that the principles contained in Order
\n              XXIII, respondent no.1 was based on rule of public policy and
\n              would also apply to the writ proceedings in a High Court the
\n              Supreme Court held that the rule would also apply to a Special  <\/p>\n
              Leave Petition (SLP) filed under Artilce 136 of the Constitution
\n              of India.  It held that once a SLP filed against an order of the
\n              High   Court had  been  withdrawn without obtaining  from  the
\n              court liberty to file a SLP again, fresh SLP against the same  <\/p>\n
              impugned order would not be maintainable.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              12. In my view, the principle contained in Order XXIII Rule 1
\n              of the Code of Civil Procedure would also apply equally to the
\n              proceedings   before   a   Labour   and   Industrial   Court.     If   the <\/p>\n
              applicant\/complainant   approaching   a   Labour   or   Industrial
\n              Court   withdraws   unconditionally   a   proceeding   without
\n              obtaining a leave of the Court to file a fresh proceeding on the
\n              same subject matter, he would not again be allowed to file a  <\/p>\n
              fresh proceedings on the very same subject matter.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    4         Even otherwise, I am in agreement with the above observations, the <\/p>\n
    Industrial jurisprudence, it is necessary and desirable that such Industrial <\/p>\n
    Disputes   should   be   settled,   as   early   as   possible   and   once   settled   not   to <\/p>\n
    disturb at the instance of only one person. The impugned order so passed, <\/p>\n
    on   merit,   in   view   of   above   is   unsustainable.   The   complaint   itself   is   not <\/p>\n
    entertainable.  The reasonings so recorded need definite interference.  The <\/p>\n
    aspect of res-judicata, estoppel, is also relevant, even to the Industrial and <\/p>\n
    Labour Dispute matters. When we talk about the applicability of principles <\/p>\n
    of   natural   justice;   fair   hearing;   fair   opportunity;   compromise\/settlement <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:54:34 :::<\/span>
\n     wp2095.98.sxw                                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
    which are otherwise applicable in general litigation, are also available in <\/p>\n
    such industrial  disputes.   If that is  so, there  is  no  reason  that the  same <\/p>\n
    principle   should   not   be   extended   in   such   rejection,   basically   when   the <\/p>\n
    parties have not only agreed and settled the matter and accordingly got the <\/p>\n
    matter disposed of, in the year 1991 itself.  The pre-agitation of one worker-\n<\/p>\n
    by the Complainant, is now, as done in the present case, will frustrate the <\/p>\n
    whole purpose and object, as done in the present case and in my view, if it <\/p>\n
    is   permitted,   it   will   disturb   and   it   will   create   complications   rather   than <\/p>\n
    solving it, because of one such worker-employee though the matter settled, <\/p>\n
    still   agitating   the   issue,   this   approach,   in   my   view,   itself   impermissible <\/p>\n
    basically in the facts and circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n
    5         The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, submitted that <\/p>\n
    the Complaint (ULP) No. 743 of 1991 was never decided on merit finally <\/p>\n
    and therefore, there is no bar to file such complaint to agitate the issue.\n<\/p>\n
    This submission,  in my view,  is not correct in view of order passed by the <\/p>\n
    Industrial Court on 14\/10\/1991, as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                               “ORDER (Below Ex. U-1)”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              “In view of order passed on Ex. U.1, the Complaint is disposed
\n              off for non prosecution as settled out of Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      No order as to cost.”<\/p>\n
    Having once settled the matter, whether it is decided finally on merits or <\/p>\n
    not, is irrelevant.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:54:34 :::<\/span>
\n     wp2095.98.sxw                                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
    6         Resultantly,   the   impugned   order   is   quashed   and   set   aside   as <\/p>\n
    complaint so filed is not entertainable. It is dismissed. However, it is made <\/p>\n
    clear that all the amounts, already withdrawn by Respondent No.1, as the <\/p>\n
    amount paid to the other workers, need not be recovered.\n<\/p>\n
    7         The Petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).  No <\/p>\n
    order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                 ig                    (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)\n                               \n          \n       \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                             ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:54:34 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Indian Partnership Act vs 2 Shri V.L. Kamble on 30 April, 2010 Bench: Anoop V.Mohta wp2095.98.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2095 OF 1998 Shri G.B. Hingurani, Partner, M\/s. Fashion Apparels, a Partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, having […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-80163","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nIndian Partnership Act vs 2 Shri V.L. Kamble on 30 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-partnership-act-vs-2-shri-v-l-kamble-on-30-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Indian Partnership Act vs 2 Shri V.L. Kamble on 30 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-partnership-act-vs-2-shri-v-l-kamble-on-30-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-04T05:46:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-partnership-act-vs-2-shri-v-l-kamble-on-30-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-partnership-act-vs-2-shri-v-l-kamble-on-30-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Indian Partnership Act vs 2 Shri V.L. Kamble on 30 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-04T05:46:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-partnership-act-vs-2-shri-v-l-kamble-on-30-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1503,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-partnership-act-vs-2-shri-v-l-kamble-on-30-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-partnership-act-vs-2-shri-v-l-kamble-on-30-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-partnership-act-vs-2-shri-v-l-kamble-on-30-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Indian Partnership Act vs 2 Shri V.L. Kamble on 30 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-04T05:46:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-partnership-act-vs-2-shri-v-l-kamble-on-30-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-partnership-act-vs-2-shri-v-l-kamble-on-30-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-partnership-act-vs-2-shri-v-l-kamble-on-30-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Indian Partnership Act vs 2 Shri V.L. Kamble on 30 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Indian Partnership Act vs 2 Shri V.L. Kamble on 30 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-partnership-act-vs-2-shri-v-l-kamble-on-30-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Indian Partnership Act vs 2 Shri V.L. Kamble on 30 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-partnership-act-vs-2-shri-v-l-kamble-on-30-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-04T05:46:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-partnership-act-vs-2-shri-v-l-kamble-on-30-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-partnership-act-vs-2-shri-v-l-kamble-on-30-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Indian Partnership Act vs 2 Shri V.L. Kamble on 30 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-04T05:46:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-partnership-act-vs-2-shri-v-l-kamble-on-30-april-2010"},"wordCount":1503,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-partnership-act-vs-2-shri-v-l-kamble-on-30-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-partnership-act-vs-2-shri-v-l-kamble-on-30-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-partnership-act-vs-2-shri-v-l-kamble-on-30-april-2010","name":"Indian Partnership Act vs 2 Shri V.L. Kamble on 30 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-04T05:46:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-partnership-act-vs-2-shri-v-l-kamble-on-30-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-partnership-act-vs-2-shri-v-l-kamble-on-30-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-partnership-act-vs-2-shri-v-l-kamble-on-30-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Indian Partnership Act vs 2 Shri V.L. Kamble on 30 April, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80163","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=80163"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80163\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80163"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80163"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80163"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}