1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAZ) NO. 675/2009 in LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.510/2009 in WRIT PETITION NO. 2122/2002 (D) (Arunkumar Dwarkalal Jaiswal ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. A.M.Ghare, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. D.B.Yengal, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr. R.L.Khapre, Advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM : A.H.JOSHI & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED : DECEMBER 16, 2009. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard by consent. 3. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the order, which was challenged. Hon’ble Minister had directed enforcement of partnership of 10% in favour of respondent No.3. 4. It prima facie appears that the original document of partnership was cancelled being partnership at will. Status of partnership may not be capable of being enforced at the hands of Executive. 5. Moreover, it is prima facie seen that the business as 2 initially run by the partnership firm has been continued by appellants in exclusion to the respondent. Accounts have not been rendered and sharing of profit with respondent has not been done. 6. In this background, interest of justice would be met, if in view of admission of appeal, the appellant is directed to pay to the respondent No.3, directly, every month unconditionally, an amount of Rs.15,000/- by Demand Draft locally payable and deposit in this Court every month an amount of Rs.10,000/- on or before 10th day of every month untill disposal of appeal. 7. In order to avoid inconvenience, the appellant would be free to make lumpsump deposit in advance for future six months’ at a time. The payment to respondent No.3 would, however, be made month to month before 10th day of every month. 8. Civil Application is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale