Badyal v Badyal & Anor

Badyal v Badyal & Anor

The disputed UK and Indian assets (save for the Farmhouse) are partnership property of SPC or held on trust for the three brothers in equal shares, to be determined on the taking of accounts. TSB was involved in and funded Trident, a competitor to PPUK, and encouraged key employees to join it. SSB's competing company was set up with the acquiescence of TSB and MSB. Payroll irregularities were not proven to be SSB's responsibility. TSB was not unfairly prejudiced by his removal as director of PPUK, and it is not just and equitable to wind up PPUK.

Parties
Claimant/petitioner: Tarlochan Singh Badyal; First Defendant/first Respondent: Malkiat Singh Badyal; Second Defendant/second Respondent: Santokh Singh Badyal
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil (partnership and Company Dispute) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Partnership to be wound up and accounts taken; Petition to wind up PPUK and/or for section 994 relief dismissed.
Legal Topics
Winding Up of Partnership, Just and Equitable Winding Up of Company, Unfair Prejudice, Beneficial Ownership of Assets, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Misappropriation of Partnership Assets, Payroll Irregularities
Company Law Partnership Law Equity and Trusts Winding Up of Partnership Just and Equitable Winding Up of Company Unfair Prejudice Beneficial Ownership of Assets Breach of Fiduciary Duty +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tarlochan Singh Badyal

Claimant/petitioner

Malkiat Singh Badyal

First Defendant/first Respondent

Santokh Singh Badyal

Second Defendant/second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (partnership and Company Dispute) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disputed UK and Indian properties are partnership assets or held on trust for the brothers
  2. 2 Whether SSB breached fiduciary duties by setting up a competing company (PPL/AMJ)
  3. 3 Whether SSB was responsible for payroll irregularities and misappropriation

Ratio Decidendi

The disputed UK and Indian assets (save for the Farmhouse) are partnership property of SPC or held on trust for the three brothers in equal shares, to be determined on the taking of accounts. TSB was involved in and funded Trident, a competitor to PPUK, and encouraged key employees to join it. SSB's competing company was set up with the acquiescence of TSB and MSB. Payroll irregularities were not proven to be SSB's responsibility. TSB was not unfairly prejudiced by his removal as director of PPUK, and it is not just and equitable to wind up PPUK.

Court Disposition

Partnership to be wound up and accounts taken; Petition to wind up PPUK and/or for section 994 relief dismissed.

Orders

  • SPC partnership dissolved and usual orders for winding up and taking of accounts made.
  • Ownership of disputed assets to be determined on the taking of accounts.