- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6001-DB WA No. 100645 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO.100645 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O. SOMASHEKARAYYA SAMSTHANAMATH AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. TRANSPORT BUSINESS, R/O. NO.34, NAKSHATRA COLONY, SHANTI NAGAR, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI-580023. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE.) AND 1. THE ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD-580001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560009. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUKA (ADDITIONAL), YELANKHA SUB URBAN, BENGALURU-560001. 4. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, DHARWAD REGION, DHARWAD-580001. 5. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR, ENQUIRIES-I KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6001-DB WA No. 100645 of 2024 6. SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O. LATE S. PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 7. SRI. PRADEEPKUMAR S. S/O. LATE S. PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, 8. SRI. UDAYKUMAR S. S/O. LATE S. PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R6 TO R8 ARE R/O. 27/32, 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS, KOTTIGE PALYA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560091. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI UDAYKUMAR S. (PARTY-IN-PERSON) FOR R8 AND ON BEHALF OF R6, R7.) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE SINGLE JUDGE DATED 20/09/2024, PASSED IN W.P.NO.107963/2014, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.,. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 19.03.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, C.M. POONACHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6001-DB WA No. 100645 of 2024 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) Although the above appeal was listed for admission, with the consent of both the sides, the appeal has been heard finally on merits. 2. The present intra-Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, by the writ petitioner calling in question the order dated 20.09.2024, passed in W.P.No.107963/2014, whereunder the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. 3. The factual matrix in brief leading for the present appeal are that the appellant/petitioner along with his brothers constituted a Partnership Firm under the name and style of “Ambika Transport Company1” and were carrying on the business of transport operations. The said Firm was registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act 19322. Subsequently the said Firm was dissolved by dissolution deed dated 31.03.2002. In the meanwhile, legal 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Firm’. 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Partnership Act’. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6001-DB WA No. 100645 of 2024 representatives of a deceased workman initiated claim proceedings under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 19233, for the death of a workman of the Firm. The claim Commissioner by award dated 27.08.2010, allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.3,45,040/- together with interest and costs. Towards recovery of the said award amount, the 2nd respondent Deputy Commissioner and the 3rd respondent Tahasildar initiated various measures and accordingly the trucks of the appellant were seized and sold towards recovery of the compensation payable under the award dated 27.08.2010. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P.No.107963/2014. The learned single Judge by order dated 20.09.2024, dismissed the said writ petition. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed. 4. Learned counsel Sri V.M.Sheelavant, appearing for the appellant, assailing the order of the learned single Judge, contends that, although the petitioner along with his brothers were carrying on business in the name of the Firm 3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘W.C.Act’. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6001-DB WA No. 100645 of 2024 from 22.04.1993, the said Firm was dissolved on 31.03.2002 itself, consequent to which, the petitioner and his brothers have been carrying on business independently. It is further contended that pursuant to the dissolution of the firm, the petitioner has also intimated the factum of dissolution to various statutory and tax authorities, which is forthcoming from the material on record. It is further contended that the petitioner is carrying on the transport business at Hubballi, whereas his brother Om Kumar is carrying on transport business at Bengaluru and that in the proceedings under the W.C.Act, the address of the brother of the petitioner who was carrying on business in Bengaluru is stated and only his brother is liable to pay the amounts under the award dated 27.08.2010. It is further contended that the claim proceedings were initiated during the year 2006 i.e., more than four years after the dissolution of the Firm and that the petitioner is in no manner responsible/liable for the amounts due and payable under the award dated 27.08.2010. It is contended that the learned single Judge has erroneously dismissed the writ petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6001-DB WA No. 100645 of 2024 5. Per contra, Sri Uday Kumar S., the 8th respondent, who has appeared in person on behalf of himself and on behalf of respondents No.6 and 7 submits that the petitioner was carrying on business along with his brother jointly and the Firm having been registered in the year 1993 itself, there have been no changes in the constitution of the Firm as has been confirmed by the relevant statutory authorities. It is further contended that the present writ petition is only an attempt by the petitioner to wriggle out of the liability to pay the amounts due and payable under the award dated 27.08.2010. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate Sri V.S.Kalasurmath, for the respondents No.1 to 4 and learned counsel Sri Anil Kale, for respondent No.5 makes submissions from the material on record. 7. The submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties have been considered and the material on record have been perused. The question that arises for consideration is, “whether the learned single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition?” - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6001-DB WA No. 100645 of 2024 8. The Firm was constituted under the deed of partnership dated 22.04.1993. Admittedly the said Firm was registered under the provisions of the Partnership Act. The Firm was dissolved, vide deed of dissolution dated 31.03.2002. However the dissolution deed has not been registered in terms of the Partnership Act. 9. Section 45(1) of the Partnership Act stipulates that notwithstanding the dissolution of the Firm, the partners continued to be liable to third parties until public notice is given of the dissolution of the firm. The proviso to Section 45(1) stipulates certain situations where Section 45(1) could not be applicable. Section 63 of the Partnership Act stipulates that any changes in constitution of the registered Firm is required to be notified to the Registrar. 10. Admittedly in the present case although the Firm has been duly registered under the Partnership Act, the dissolution of the same was not notified. There is no material on record to indicate that publication as required under Section 45(1) of the Partnership Act was issued. The petitioner has also not pleaded that the publication in - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6001-DB WA No. 100645 of 2024 accordance with Section 45(1) of the Partnership Act has been issued. 11. It is the sole contention of the writ petitioner that after 2002, himself and his brother have been carrying on business separately and hence the petitioner was not liable to pay the amount under the award dated 27.08.2010. It is not the case of the petitioner that the publication in terms of Section 45(1) of the Partnership Act has been issued with regard to the dissolution of the firm. 12. The learned single Judge considering the relevant fact situation has recorded a finding that although the partnership was dissolved in the year 2002 itself, except producing the dissolution deed and individual filing of income tax returns, no documents are produced by the petitioner to indicate that dissolution has been done in accordance with the provisions of the Partnership Act. Hence, learned single Judge has recorded a finding that the Firm is not dissolved in accordance with law by giving public notice and by making entries before the Registrar of Firms. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6001-DB WA No. 100645 of 2024 13. The finding recorded by the learned single Judge is just and proper and the appellant has failed in demonstrating the said finding is in any manner erroneous as being contrary to any specific material on record and liable to be set aside by this Court in the present appeal. Hence, the question framed for consideration is answered in the ‘affirmative’. 14. In view of the aforementioned, the appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merits. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE MRK, CT: UMD. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4