Bombay High Court
SHAM RAGHUNATH THORAT (WANI)versusTHE COLLECTRO OF NASHIK AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- AMIT BORKAR
Holding
The Court held that the partnership is dissolved by operation of law upon the death of a partner, and therefore the dispute pertains to extinguished partnership rights, directing the Collector to decide the licence transfer application and disposing of the writ petition.
Summary
The writ petition arose from a dispute between Sushilabai Raghunath Wani and Shakuntalabai over CL-III Licence No.24, which was originally held by a partnership between Raghunath and Manohar and later continued by Sushilabai and her son, with an agreement that the late Pandit Thorat (Wani) was entitled to a 45% profit share. During the pendency of the proceedings, respondents No.4 and No.5 entered into a consent decree in a civil suit confirming the 45% share to the legal representatives of the deceased, a position later contested by respondent No.5. The Court observed that, under partnership law, the death of a partner dissolves the partnership by operation of law, rendering the partnership rights extinguished. Consequently, the Court directed the Collector to decide the application for transfer of the licence to the legal representatives within eight weeks, after hearing all parties, and to pass a reasoned order. The order dated 25 March 2026 was kept in operation for two weeks, and the writ petition, along with the interim and civil applications, was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether partnership rights survive the death of a partner for purposes of licence entitlement
- Whether the Collector is obligated to transfer the CL-III licence to the legal representatives of the deceased partner
- Effect of dissolution of partnership on the continuation and renewal of the licence
- Appropriate procedural steps for disposal of the writ petition and related applications
Subjects
- partnership law
- death of partner
- dissolution of partnership
- CL-III licence
- licence transfer
- writ petition
- High Court of Bombay
- civil application
Judgment
Speak-1-wp-5236-2011.doc
MPBalekar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5236 OF 2011
Sushilabai Raghunath Wani
(since deceased, through her legal heirs)
and Ors. … Petitioners
V/s.
The Collector of Nasik and Ors. … Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO. 27925 OF 2017
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 5236 OF 2011
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1693 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 5236 OF 2011
Ms. Veena Thadhani for the petitioner.
Mr. A.A. Alaspurkar, AGP, for the State.
Mrs. Meena A. Ruparel for respondent No.4.
Mr. Pankaj Jagannath Das for respondent No.5.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : APRIL 15, 2026
P.C.:
1. The matter is called out for speaking to the minutes of order
dated 8 April 2026. The corrected order dated 8 April 2026 reads
thus:-
“1. The present writ petition arises from a dispute between
Sushilabai and Shakuntalabai concerning CL-III Licence
1
Speak-1-wp-5236-2011.doc
No.24. The record indicates that an original partnership deed
had been executed between Raghunath and Manohar. Upon
subsequent changes, the said business arrangement was
continued by Sushilabai and her son Pandit Raghunath Wani
[late Pandit Thorat (Wani)], wherein it was mutually agreed
that late Pandit Thorat (Wani) would be entitled to 45
percent share in the profits.
2. It is further revealed that during the pendency of the
present proceedings, as well as the writ petition, the
respondent Nos. 4 & 5 arrived at consent terms in a civil suit.
Under the said terms, it was agreed that 45 percent share in
the profits shall be paid to the legal representatives of
deceased late Pandit Thorat (Wani). This position however is
disputed by respondent No.5.
3. However, having regard to the nature of the
partnership deed executed between Sushilabai and late
Pandit Thorat (Wani), it is evident that upon the death of
one of the partners, the partnership stood dissolved by
operation of law.
4. This Court, by its order dated 25 March 2026, directed
the concerned authorities to take necessary steps for renewal
of CL-III Licence No. 24. Pursuant thereto, it has been
informed that the said licence has accordingly been
continued.
5. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that during
the pendency of the proceedings, Shakuntalabai,
2
Speak-1-wp-5236-2011.doc
Ramchandra and Sham have preferred an application
seeking transfer of the licence in their favour.
6. In view of the aforesaid factual position, and
considering that the dispute in the present writ petition
emanates from partnership rights which, upon the death of a
partner, no longer subsist in the eye of law, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the following directions would
subserve the ends of justice:
i. The Collector shall decide, within a period of eight
weeks from today, the application filed by the legal
representatives of Sushilabai and late Pandit Thorat
(Wani) seeking transfer of the licence, in accordance
with law.
ii. While deciding the said application, the Collector
shall afford an opportunity of hearing to all concerned
parties, including the legal representatives of
Sushilabai and respondent No. 4.
iii. The Collector shall pass a reasoned order in
accordance with law. In the event the order is adverse
to any party, it shall be open to such aggrieved party to
challenge the same before the appropriate forum.
iv. The order dated 25 March 2026 shall remain in
operation for a further period of two weeks from the
date of receipt of order passed by the Collector.
7. In view of the aforesaid directions, the writ petition
3
Speak-1-wp-5236-2011.doc
stands disposed of. In consequence of disposal of the writ
petition, the interim application as well as the civil
application do not survive and are accordingly disposed of.
8. All the contentions of respective parties are specifically
kept open. ”
2. Accordingly, correction be carried out in the original order
and upload the same as order No.2 in this matter.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
4
Checking your session…