Delhi District Court
Syed Javed Azmat vs Syed Munir Azmat Ors on 3 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINAY SINGHAL:
DISTRICT JUDGE-09: (CENTRAL):
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
In the matter of:-
CS DJ-614953-16
Syed Javed Azmat (since deceased)
Now represented by his legal heirs
1(a). Mrs. Tajwar Bano
WD/O Late Shri Syed Javed Azmat
R/O- 1235, Gali Mahal Sarai,
Haveli Hissamuddin Haider
Ballimaran, Delhi-06
1(b). Mr. Syed Mansoor Ali
S/O Late Shri Syed Javed Azmat
R/O- 1235, Gali Mahal Sarai,
Haveli Hissamuddin Haider
Ballimaran, Delhi-06
1(c). Mrs Syed Asim Azmat
S/O Late Shri Syed Javed Azmat
R/O- 1235, Gali Mahal Sarai,
Haveli Hissamuddin Haider
Ballimaran, Delhi-06 ...... PLAINTIFFS
Versus
1. Syed Munir Azmat
S/O Late Syed Azmat Ali
R/O Flat No. 6, 3rd Floor
Lane No. 17, Zakir Nagar, Okhla,
New Delhi-110025
ALSO AT
Office at House No. 1235,
Mahal Sarai, Ballimaran,
Delhi
2. Royal Products
1235, Mahal Sarai, Ballimaran,
Delhi-110006
CS DJ-614953-16 Syed Javed Azmat Vs Syed Munir Azmat Pg.1/22
3. New Royal Products
21/2, Lane No.7, Friends Colony
Industrial Area, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi-95
through defendant No.1
4. Deputy Director (ISM & H) &
Licensing Authority (ISM)
Office of the Director
Directorate of Indian System
of Medicine & Homeopathy
(Drugs Control Department)
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Tibbya College Campus,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 ...DEFENDANTS
Date of Institution of Suit : 24.02.2007
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 03.01.2026
SUIT FOR PARTITION,DECLARATION, RENDITION OF
ACCOUNTS AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this Judgment, the Suit for Partition, Declaration, Rendition of Accounts and Permanent Injunction stand decreed in terms of Relief Paras.
PART-A (PLAINTIFF'S CASE)
2. Defendant No.2 is M/S Royal Products.
3. As per plaintiff he started the defendant No.2 in 1970 as a proprietor firm and also obtained the manufacturing license bearing No. 166/74/COS qua it.
CS DJ-614953-16 Syed Javed Azmat Vs Syed Munir Azmat Pg.2/22
4. It is also stated that subsequently another manufacturing license No. DL/167/A & U on 12.03.1982 was obtained qua it.
5. With respect to the license mentioned in Para No.4 above, the plaintiff was shown as Technical Supervisor qua it.
6. It is stated that subsequently a family arrangement was made whereby Smt. Noor Jahan- mother of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 was handed over the command of defendant No.2 by making her the proprietor of the defendant No.2.
7. It is stated that Smt Noor Jahan died intestate on 07.01.2000.
8. It is further stated that the defendant No.1 after the death of Smt Noor Jahan, developed ill intention and got the registration and bank account of defendant No.2 transferred to another bank account in the name of defendant No.2 by forging documents and Will of Smt. Noor Jahan.
9. It is stated that subsequently defendant NO.1 opened a new proprietorship firm M/S New Royal Products- defendant No.3 and also obtained a new license No. DL/295/A & U qua it.
10. It is stated that the defendant No.3 is now selling the patented products of defendant No.2 by passing them off as product of defendant No.3.
11. It is also stated that the defendant No.1 also filed a probate petition in December, 2000 qua the said Will of Smt. Noor CS DJ-614953-16 Syed Javed Azmat Vs Syed Munir Azmat Pg.3/22 Jahan which was dismissed for non prosecution vide order dated 19.09.2005 and even the application u/o 9 Rule 9 CPC for restoration of the same was dismissed vide order dated 22.05.2006.
12. It is further stated that on 11.02.2007 the plaintiff met the defendant No.1 with a request to dissolve the business of defendant No.2 & 3 and settle the account but the defendant No.1 did not agree.
13. Hence, the present suit seeking the following relief :-
i. As regards suit for partition of the assets of M/S Royal Products, 1235, Mahal Sarai, Ballimaran, Delhi-06, as defendant No.2 and M/S Royal Products at 21/2, Lane No.7, Friends Colony, Industrial Area, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110095, as defendant No.3 may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and the shares of the plaintiff may kindly be ordered to be separately by metes and bounds;
ii. As regards sit for declaration decree of the declaration kindly be passed thereby declare the Will dated 07.09.1999 as null and void, which was registered in the office of Sub- Registrar office, Delhi, vide registered No. 7466, Book No. III, Volume No. 74, on pages 41 to 43 as null and void;
iii. As regards suit for Rendition of Accounts, directing the defendant No.1 to produce/ furnish all the books CS DJ-614953-16 Syed Javed Azmat Vs Syed Munir Azmat Pg.4/22 of accounts concerning the defendant No.2 and defendant No.3 showing the last upto date balance sheet of the defendant No.2 and defendant No.3;
iv. As regard suit for Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant No.1, his agents, representatives, attorney, assignees, transferees, employees of the defendant No.1 from running the business as well as using the name of M/S Royal Products defendant No.2 operating at 1235, Mahal Sarai, Ballimaran, Delhi-06, and/ or M/S New Royal Products i.e defendant No.3 operating at 21/2, Lane No.7, friends Colony Industrial Area, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110095;
14. Plaintiff expired during the course of trial and his LRs were accordingly brought on record.
PART-B (DEFENDANT'S CASE)
15. Defendant No.4 stand dropped by the plaintiff vide order dated 09.11.2023.
16. Defendant No.1 to 3 filed a joint Written Statement.
17. The defendant took preliminary objection of the suit being barred by law of limitation on the ground that the plaintiff ceased to be the proprietor of the defendant No.2 since 1982 i.e more than 25 years prior to the filing of the present suit.
18. The defendant also took the objection of the suit being bad for non joinder of necessary party being a suit for partition CS DJ-614953-16 Syed Javed Azmat Vs Syed Munir Azmat Pg.5/22 where all the LRs of deceased Noor Jahan stand not impleaded.
19. It is stated that it was the father of plaintiff and defendant No.1 who started defendant No.2 but the plaintiff was made the proprietor of defendant No.2 as the father of the parties was employed beside being the fact that plaintiff was the eldest son of the family.
20. It is stated that the plaintiff was not diligent enough to run the business of defendant No.2 and accordingly out of his own will sold the business of defendant No.2 to Smt Noor Jahan - his mother.
21. It is also stated that license No. DL/167/A & U was granted in favour of Smt Noor Jahan- Proprietor of defendant No.2.
22. It is stated that qua the above mentioned license, in terms of requirement of license granting authority, the plaintiff was shown as technical person qua the said license who continued to work as an employee with defendant No.2.
23. It is stated that in any other case the said license stand cancelled in 2006.
24. It is stated that Smt. Noor Jahan did not die intestate but rather she executed a registered Will, the factum of which was known to the plaintiff who also gave no objection to the execution of the said Will and also singed a letter of disclaimer qua it.
CS DJ-614953-16 Syed Javed Azmat Vs Syed Munir Azmat Pg.6/22
25. It is stated that after the demise of Smt Noor Jahan, business of defendant No.2 stand transferred in the name of defendant No.1 in 2000.
26. It is also stated that after the demise of Smt. Noor Jahan a family settlement took place between plaintiff, defendant No.1 and other legal heirs of Smt. Noor Jahan by virtue of which, with the consent of plaintiff the business of defendant No.2 was transferred to defendant No.1 and in view of the said consent of plaintiff, a substantive portion of the house was given to the plaintiff.
27. It is stated that thereafter due to regulatory norms the defendant No.2 was closed.
28. It is also stated that after the closure of defendant No.2, defendant No.1 out of his own fund, arranged from different sources, started the new proprietorship firm- defendant No.3.
29. It is stated that thereafter on account of family dispute, the matter was referred to Arbitration who confirmed the earlier family settlement and also awarded another portion of the house beside the earlier portion to the plaintiff and the said arbitration award was duly accepted by the plaintiff.
30. It is stated that as such the plaintiff is not entitled for reliefs claimed.
CS DJ-614953-16 Syed Javed Azmat Vs Syed Munir Azmat Pg.7/22 PART-C (ISSUES)
31. Issues were framed vide order dated 14.07.2011.
i. Whether the suit has been filed within the period of limitation? OPP ii. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-
joinder of necessary parties? If so, to what effect? OPD.
iii. Whether the issues between the parties had been resolved under family settlement executed after demised of mother of plaintiff and defendant No.1 and subsequent arbitration award? OPD.
iv. Whether the suit has been valued properly for the purposes of court fee in jurisdiction and appropriate court fee has been paid on the paint? OPP.
v. Whether the plaintiff was an employee as technical hand with defendant No.2? OPD.
vi. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration in respect of Will dated 07.09.1999 of his mother? OPP.
vii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of partition of the assets of defendant No.2 and 3? OPP viii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of rendition of accounts of defendants No.2 & 3 against defendant NO.1? OPP CS DJ-614953-16 Syed Javed Azmat Vs Syed Munir Azmat Pg.8/22 ix. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as has been claimed in this suit.
x. Relief.
PART-D
(PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE)
32. Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 & proved on record the following documents :-
1. Ex PW1/A Affidavit of evidence.
2. Ex PW1/1 Copy of license No. 166/74 dated 16.02.1974.
3. Ex PW1/2 Original copy of license issued by License Authority, drug controller, Delhi dated 12.03.1982
4. Ex PW1/3 Letter of defendant No.4.
5. Ex PW1/4 Another letter send by the officials of defendant No.4 on 17.02.2006
6. Ex PW1/5 The certified copy of fabricated Will.
7. Ex PW1/6 The certified copy of petition of defendant No.1 u/s 276 of Indian Succession Act for grant of probate.
8. Ex PW1/7 Certified copy of order dated 22.05.2006 passed by Sh. V.K. Gupta Ld. ADJ, Delhi
9. EX PW1/8 Legal notice dated 28.07.2006 sent on 31.07.2006.
10. Ex PW1/9 Reply to the legal notice dated 31.08.2006
33. The PW-1 deposed along the lines of the stand taken in the suit.
CS DJ-614953-16 Syed Javed Azmat Vs Syed Munir Azmat Pg.9/22
34. During cross examination the PW-1 deposed that :-
i. Plaintiff deposed that NOC dated 16.02.2000- Mark-
A ( Ex DW1/5) which is a NOC purportedly executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 qua defendant No.2 business does not bear his signatures.
ii. Plaintiff deposed that disclaimer letter dated 27.04.2000 Mark-B (Ex DW1/6) which is purportedly executed by plaintiff along with his two other brothers in favour of defendant No.1 qua defendant No.2 business does not bear his signatures.
35. Neither the alleged Will dated 07.09.1999 allegedly executed by Smt. Noor Jahan was put to the PW-1 nor even a single question about it genuineness was put to him during his cross examination.
36. There is no person designated or examined as PW-2.
37. Plaintiff examined Shaid Parvez, Haris, Ameen Alam, Mohd Tahir Aslam Qadri as PW-3 to 6 in order to support his case that defendant No.2 was started by him but their entire evidence is based on their limited knowledge as an outsider to the affairs of plaintiff, Noor Jahan and Defendant No.1 & 2.
CS DJ-614953-16 Syed Javed Azmat Vs Syed Munir Azmat Pg.10/22 PART-E (DEFENDANT EVIDENCE)
38. Defendant No.1 examined himself as DW-1 and proved on record the following documents :-
1. Ex DW1/A Affidavit of evidence.
2. Ex DW1/1 The original license No. DL/167/ A&U
3. Ex DW1/1A The RTI received by deponent from the Drug Authority w.r.t the name of the proprietor of Royal Products in the year, 1982
4. Ex DW1/2 General Power of Attorney
5. EX DW1/3 Copy of registered Will of Smt. Noor Jahan.
6. EX DW1/4 NOC dated 22.01.2000
7. EX DW1/5 NOC dated 16.02.2000.
8. Ex DW1/6 Letter of disclaimer dated 27.04.2000.
9. Ex DW1/7 & 8 The family settlement.
10. EX DW1/9 The letter regarding the technical person remained with the Royal Products.
11. Ex DW1/10 The letter bearing registration of the said product under the proprietorship of the deponent.
12. DW1/11 Copy of license No. DL/167/ A&U
13. DW1/12 Copy of GMP norms.
14. DW1/13 & 14 Letter dated 29.07.2004 and 10.12.2004.
15. DW1/15 The memorandum dated 17.02.2006
16. DW1/16 The copy of passbook.
(colly)
17. Ex DW1/17 The copy of license bearing No. CS DJ-614953-16 Syed Javed Azmat Vs Syed Munir Azmat Pg.11/22 DL/295/A&U
18. DW1/18 The list of porducts.
39. His cross examination was based on the averments taken by the plaintiff in the plaint.
40. Defendant also examined Nadeem and Saleem as DW-3 and DW-11 stated to be attesting witness of Will Ex PW1/5.
41. Interestingly, the Will Ex PW1/5 was neither produced in original nor the registered copy of the same was summoned from the concerned Sub Registrar nor the same was ever put to the attesting witnesses DW-3 & DW-11 w.r.t identification of their signatures over it in terms of provisions of Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act.
42. Defendant also examined his brothers and sisters as DW-6, DW-7, DW-8, DW-9 beside his cousin brothers/sister/ neighbour/employees as DW-2, DW-4, DW-5, DW-10 & DW-12.
43. DW-13 is the handwriting expert whereas DW-14 is the official from license granting authority.
PART-F (FINDINGS/CONCLUSION)
44. Heard. Considered.
45. Issue No.6-Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration in respect of Will dated 07.09.1999 of his mother? OPP.
CS DJ-614953-16 Syed Javed Azmat Vs Syed Munir Azmat Pg.12/22
46. The existence of Will allegedly executed by Smt Noor Jahan, is a stand taken by defendant No.1.
47. It is an admitted fact that the probate petition No. 244/06/1 filed by the defendant No.1 qua the said Will was dismissed for non prosecution vide order dated 19.09.2005 and the restoration application qua it was also dismissed vide order dated 22.05.2006.
48. Meaning thereby defendant No.1 is the propounder of the said Will and accordingly as per the settled law the onus was upon him to prove the existence and the veracity of the said Will.
49. However, as already discussed in Part- E above, the said Will dated 07.09.1999 allegedly duly registered with the office concerned Sub Registrar was neither placed on record in original nor the same was summoned from the office of concerned Sub Registrar.
50. The placing on record a true copy of the same as Ex PW1/5= Ex DW1/3 is not equvalent to proving/ placing the original Will in question or the existence of the said original Will.
51. Furthermore, as already discussed in Part-E above, the attesting witnesses to the said Will i.e DW2 & DW11 never relied upon the said Will in their evidence nor exhibited the same nor were ever confronted with the said Will or its copy placed on record nor they gave any depostion on their own w.r.t their so called signatures as attesting witness on the said Will as the said Will was neither referred nor their CS DJ-614953-16 Syed Javed Azmat Vs Syed Munir Azmat Pg.13/22 attention was drawn to their any such signatures as witnesses on any such Will.
52. Accordingly, as far as the requirement laid down by Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is concerned, the same stand not fulfilled by the defendant No.1 who is propounder of the said Will.
53. Accordingly, it is held that there was no Will dated 07.09.199 proved to be executed by Smt. Noor Jahan.
54. Hence, Issue No.6 is decided in favour of plaintiff holding/ declaring that Will dated 07.09.1999 having stand not proved to be in existence or executed by Smt. Noor Jahan and as such it is held that Smt. Noor Jahan died intestate.
55. Issue No.4-Whether the suit has been valued properly for the purposes of court fee in jurisdiction and appropriate court fee has been paid on the paint? OPP.
56. This issue has been framed on account of preliminary objection raised by the defendant in the Written Statement.
57. However, in order to challenge the valuation as given by the plaintiff in the plaint, no contrary evidence has been led by the defendant nor any question about it stand put to the PW-1 during his cross examination.
58. Hence, in the absence of any contradiction disproving the valuation as given by the plaintiff, issue No.4 is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
CS DJ-614953-16 Syed Javed Azmat Vs Syed Munir Azmat Pg.14/22
59. Issue No.1-Whether the suit has been filed within the period of limitation? OPP
60. The plaintiff has filed the present suit w.r.t partition of defendant No.2 and defendant No.3 beside Rendition of account qua them.
61. The Court must say that the plaintiff himself is confused as to whether he is seeking the partition being aggrieved that his mother died intestate and she being proprietor of defendant No.2, the assets and liabilities of defendant No.2 are liable to be divided amongst legal heirs of Smt Noor Jahan OR whether he is seeking the partition and rendition of accounts on the ground that the license qua the products of defendant No.2 were his formulation and in terms of provisions of Intellectual Property and Trade Mark Act, he is alleging that defendant No.1 has infringed his Intellectual Property rights and accordingly liable for Rendition of Account.
62. However, seen from any angle, it is an admitted fact that Smt.Noor Jahan died on 07.01.2000.
63. The probate petition No. 244/6/1 wherein the plaintiff was impleaded as R-2 and his presence therein noted on 22.05.2006, the present suit having been filed on 24.02.2007, the limitation period being three years, the suit is hereby held to have been filed within the period of limiation.
64. Issue No.1 is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff.
CS DJ-614953-16 Syed Javed Azmat Vs Syed Munir Azmat Pg.15/22
65. Issue No.5-Whether the plaintiff was an employee as technical hand with defendant No.2? OPD.
66. Admittedly after Smt. Noor Jahan took over the business of defendant No.2 from plaintiff, the role of the plaintiff as of proprietor qua defendant No.2 came to an end.
67. The mere fact that plaintiff was shown as an technical hand qua license No. DL/167/A & U as a technical staff, neither makes him either proprietor or an employee in the absence of any specific evidence led by the defendant to prove that the plaintiff was indeed employed with defendant No.2.
68. Issue No.5 is accordingly decided against the defendant.
69. Issue No. 3-Whether the issues between the parties had been resolved under family settlement executed after demised of mother of plaintiff and defendant No.1 and subsequent arbitration award? OPD.
70. As already discussed in Part D & E above, neither the family agreement settlement nor the arbitration Award were put to the plaintiff deposing as DW-1 during the course of his cross examination in order to confront him qua them.
71. In fact the originals Arbitration Award was not produced on record on the ground that the same was with the plaintiff himself.
72. In the absence of the said family settlement having been put to PW-1, the same create a doubt over its veracity, depsite the evidence of other brothers and sisters of the parties in CS DJ-614953-16 Syed Javed Azmat Vs Syed Munir Azmat Pg.16/22 this respect.
73. There is another reason to disbelieve the said family settlement.
74. The said family settlement Ex DW1/7 was executed on 27.04.2000 and by virtue of it, allegedly parties agreed that the business of defendant NO.2 will devolve upon defendant No.1 herein.
75. If the defendant No.1 right from the beginning was aware of the alleged Will dated 07.09.1999 bequeathing the business of defendant No.2 upon defendant No.1, then what was the need for the said family settlement as the defendant No.1 was already owner of defendant No.2 in terms of the said Will dated 07.09.1999.
76. The Will has already been held as not proved and similar is the fate, in view of the above discussion, qua the family settlement Ex DW1/7 and Arbitration Award Mark-C.
77. Issue No.3 is accordingly decided against the defendant.
78. Issue No.2-Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-
joinder of necessary parties? If so, to what effect? OPD.
79. In view of outcome of issue No.3 & 6, whereby the court has held that Smt Noor Jahan died intestate and there was no family settlement qua the business of defendant No.2 left behind by Smt Noor Jahan, as per the settled law, all the legal heirs of Smt Noor Jahan are entitled to their respective share in the same.
CS DJ-614953-16 Syed Javed Azmat Vs Syed Munir Azmat Pg.17/22
80. The remaining Legal Heirs of Smt Noor Jahan have not been impleaded in the original suit filed in the year, 2007.
81. Application u/o 1 Rule 10 CPC in this respect filed by the plaintiff in 2019, was dismissed vide order dated 10.01.2019.
82. Hence, it is clear that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties i.e all the legal heirs of Smt Noor Jahan but at the same time the suit being a partition suit, the said defect is curable prior to passing of final decree of partition.
83. Issue N.2 is decided accordingly.
84. Issue No.7 & 8 Issue No.7-Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of partition of the assets of defendant No.2 and 3? OPP & Issue No.8-Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of rendition of accounts of defendants No.2 & 3 against defendant NO.1? OPP
85. As far as defendant No.3 is concerned, it is the stand of defendant No.1 that he started the defendant No.3 not out of the funds of the defendant No.2 but rather by arranging funds from his acquaintances qua which evidence has also been led on record.
CS DJ-614953-16 Syed Javed Azmat Vs Syed Munir Azmat Pg.18/22
86. However, it is also a fact that the products being manufactured by the defendant No.3 are also the products being manufactured by defendant No.2 and in fact names of some of them are also same.
87. There is no clear cut evidence on record as to whether the funds of defendant No.2 were indeed used by the defendant No.1 for his own gain as well as for the business of defendant No.3.
88. It is an admitted fact that some of the items/ trade names being used by defendant No.2 are being used by defendant No.3 also.
89. However, as far as present stage is concerned, the court only has to pass a Preliminary Decree of Partition and Rendition & as such till the determination on the basis of an inquiry in terms of provisions of Order 20 Rule 16 to 18, the plaintiff is held entitled to the decree of partition of the assets of defendant No.2 and in case it is found that the funds and trade mark of defendant No.2 have been used for the business of defendant No.3, for the partition of the assets of defendant No.3 also.
90. Issue No. 7 & 8 are decided accordingly.
91. Issue No.9-Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as has been claimed in this suit.
92. In view of outcome of issue No.3,6,7 & 8 and the evidence on record whereby it has been proved that as far as defendant No.2 is concerned, the same has since been closed CS DJ-614953-16 Syed Javed Azmat Vs Syed Munir Azmat Pg.19/22 down, no decree of permanent injunction qua it can be passed but in view of the decision of issue No. 7 & 8, till the conclusion of inquiry as referred to therein, the defendant No.1 is restrained from operating the business of defendant No.3 and in this respect the plaintiff is at liberty to move an appropriate application with this court for appointment of a body of Administrators to run the business of defendant No.3 from the date of this preliminary judgment/decree of partition and rendition of account till the decision of inquiry as referred to while deciding the issue no.7 & 8.
93. Issue No.9 is decided accordingly.
94. Issue No. 10-Relief
95. In view of outcome of issue no.6 & 3 r/w issue No. 7 to 9 subject to steps to be taken for bringing on record the legal heirs of Smt Noor Jahan in order to determine their respective share for the purpose of partition of defendant No.2 and subject to the outcome of inquiry qua Rendition of Accounts, which will decide as to whether the defendant No.3 is also to be partitioned or not and their possible rendition of account, this preliminary judgment granting the following relief stand passed :-
i. A preliminary decree of partition of the assets of defendant No.2 and subject to outcome of inquiry, of rendition of accounts and the possible partition of assets of defendant No.3, thereby holding that the plaintiff is entitled for his share to be determined CS DJ-614953-16 Syed Javed Azmat Vs Syed Munir Azmat Pg.20/22 being one of the legal heirs of late Smt Noor Jahan.
ii. A decree of rendition of accounts qua the defendant No.2 and subject to outcome of inquiry of rendition of accounts and the possible rendition of accounts of defendant No.3, thereby holding that the plaintiff is entitled for his share to be determined being one of the legal heirs of late Smt. Noor Jahan.
iii. A decree of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant no.1 from operating the business of defendant No.2 (though it is stated to be closed down but if still functioning).
iv. A decree of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant no.1 from operating the business of defendant No.3 till the conclusion of inquiry as to the whether the funds of defendant No.2 have been used by defendant No.1 in the functioning of defendant No.3 which is subject to the outcome of inquiry qua rendition of accounts, as per relief clause No. (b) above and from the date of this judgment till the conclusion of inquiry as stated above, the liberty to the plaintiff to approach this court for the purpose of appointment of a body of receivers to manage the affairs of defendant No.3 at the cost and expense of plaintiff.
v. A decree of declaration declaring the decree dated 07.09.1999 allegedly executed by Smt. Noor Jahan as null and void having not proved to be executed by CS DJ-614953-16 Syed Javed Azmat Vs Syed Munir Azmat Pg.21/22 her.
96. No order as to cost.
Ordered accordingly.
Let decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court on 03.01.2026 (Vinay Singhal) District Judge-09 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
03.01.2026 CS DJ-614953-16 Syed Javed Azmat Vs Syed Munir Azmat Pg.22/22 CS DJ-614953-16 Syed Javed Azmat Vs Syed Munir Azmat Pg.23/22