(1) CA. 9511.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9511 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6216 OF 2009 Vithal Dattoba Phiske .. Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents ... Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for the Applicant/Petitioner Mr. N.H. Borade, AGP for the respondent-State Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Advocate h/f. Mr. G.R. Ingole Patil, Advocate for the respondent no.4 ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 3RD AUGUST, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The application is filed for direction regarding depositing of 66% of the sale proceeds. The petitioner claims to be the partner of the business of country liquor under license no. CL-III-71/93-94. At present, the license is granted in name of the respondent no.4 in view of the orders of the Hon’ble Minister. (2) CA. 9511.2010 2. The question is whether the partnership rights of the petitioner-Vithal have continued notwithstanding the death of original license holder by name Sadaba Murume. The petitioner seeks to rely on terms of the agreement which indicate that if one of the partner would die, in that eventuality other partner may continue on basis of renewed agreement of partnership. It prima facie appears that in view of section 42 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, on death of a partner, the partnership stands dissolved on account of death of a partner. In other words, no sooner Sadaba died the partnership could be deemed as dissolved. The only right which the petitioner could claim was to seek rendition of accounts and if at all widow of partner Sadaba had agreed by separate agreement, then to continue such business. Considering the legal position mentioned above, the Application is disposed of. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp