Madras High Court
Ashok Kumar Mundhra vs Krishna Kumar Mundhra on 26 May, 2022
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
Arb.A.Nos.107 to 109 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.05.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
Arbitration Application Nos.107 to 109 of 2022
in
OA.No.272 of 2022
Arb.A.No.107 of 2022
Ashok Kumar Mundhra ... Applicant
Vs.
1.Krishna Kumar Mundhra
2.Shaymdev Mundhra
3.Uma Rathi
4.Ramdev Mundhra ... Respondents
Prayer:- Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules read with
Section 9 II (d) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to vacate the
interim injunction granted in OA.No.272 of 2022 vide order dated 06.05.2022.
For Applicant : Mr.Muralikumaran
for M/s MCGAN LAW FIRM
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.A.Nos.107 to 109 of 2022
For R1: Mr.Avinash
for Mr.N.Narayanasamy
Arb.A.No.108 of 2022
Shaymdev Mundhra ... Applicant
Vs.
1.Krishna Kumar Mundhra
2.Ashok Kumar Mundhra
3.Uma Rathi
4.Ramdev Mundhra
Prayer:- Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules read with
Section 9 II (d) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to vacate the
interim injunction granted in OA.No.272 of 2022 vide order dated 06.05.2022.
For Applicant : Mr.NGR Prasad
Senior Counsel
For R1: Mr.Avinash
for Mr.N.Narayanasamy
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.A.Nos.107 to 109 of 2022
Arb.A.No.109 of 2022
Uma Rathi ... Applicant
Vs.
1.Krishna Kumar Mundhra
2.Shaymdev Mundhra
3.Ashok Kumar Mundhra
4. Ramdev Mundhra ... Respondents
Prayer:- Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules read with
Section 9 II (d) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to vacate the
interim injunction granted in OA.No.272 of 2022 vide order dated 06.05.2022.
For Applicant : Mr.Muralikumaran
For R1: Mr.Avinash
for Mr.N.Narayanasamy
COMMON ORDER
OA.No.272 of 2022 was filed by the applicant Krishna Kumar Mundhra under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules for the following relief:- Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.A.Nos.107 to 109 of 2022 “This Hon'ble Court should not be pleased to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the 1st respondents herein as his men from using the assets, profits and goodwill of the firm M/s.Phusaram Munthada and continuing the business in the name of the partnership firm by operating the bank accounts of the firm more fully described in the Judges summons pending disposal of the appointment of petitioner's application and pass such other suitable order and thus render justice.”
2. An interim order came to be passed by this Hon'ble Court on 06.05.2022 by restraining the first respondent namely Shaymdev Mundhra from operating the accounts of the said partnership firm namely M/s.Phusuram Mundhra Private Limited which reads as under:-
“Admit.
2. Notice to the respondents.
3. In the 2nd Partnership Deed, the first respondent is a partner and he executed a Partnership Deed on 01.04.2020 including his two sons as partners. The first respondent cannot act and execute the Partnership Deed without including the petitioner.
4. The petitioner is also one of the legal heirs for the mother who is the partner as per the 1991 Partnership Deed.
5. List this case immediately after vacation. Till then, the Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.A.Nos.107 to 109 of 2022 first respondent is restraining from operating the accounts of the Partnership Firm.”
3.The Arbitration Application No.107 to 109 of 2022 have been filed to vacate order dated 06.05.2022 in OA.No.272 of 2022. The parties herein are siblings and children of late Shri Jeevanlal Mundhra and late Mrs.Mainabai Mundhra who died on 01.04.2020.
4. The case of the applicant appears to be that the dispute between the applicant and the respondents is arbitral in terms of Clause 19 of deed of partnership dated 01.04.1991. It is further case of the applicant that though the applicant resigned from the aforesaid firm on 01.04.2011, the accounts have not been settled till date. That apart, it is submitted that on 01.04.2020, the applicant's late mother Mrs.Mainabai Mundhra passed away and that the second respondent Ashok Kumar Mundhra also resigned on the same day and therefore, the said partnership no longer exist.
5. The interim order passed by this Court is sought to be vacated by the respective respondents in OA.No.272 of 2022 who are the applicants in Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.A.Nos.107 to 109 of 2022 Arb.A.Nos.108, 107 & 109 of 2022.
6. It is submitted that the order that has been passed by this Court on 06.05.2022 has to be vacated as the applicant in OA.No.272 of 2022 is not a partner of the said partnership firm and has resigned as early as on 30.04.2011 and that there are no dues in respect of the alleged claim of the said applicant.
7. It is further submitted that merely because their mother passed on 01.04.2020 ipso facto would not mean that the said partnership firm stood dissolved or the applicant was entitled to meddle with the affairs of the aforesaid firm long after resignation.
8. I have heard both the parties and in OA.No.272 of 2022 ( the applicants in AA.Nos.108, 107 & 109).
9. Prima Facie it appears that the claim of the applicant is barred by limitation as the applicant had admittedly resigned from the partnership firm as Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.A.Nos.107 to 109 of 2022 early as on 30.04.2011. Therefore, order of this Court dated 06.05.2022 cannot be allowed to continue. It has to be vacated. At best, the petitioner may file a suit or initiate arbitration proceedings for recovering the amounts that were due, which were allegedly not settled by the partnership firm subject to limitation.
Prima facie the claim appears to be time barred. Under these circumstances, the interim order passed stands vacated.
10. If at all, if the applicant is aggrieved, it is open for the applicant to appoint an Arbitrator if the claim is not stale, after issuing appropriate notices to the respective respondents in Arb.A.Nos.108, 107 & 109 of 2022 for appointing an arbitrator. Applications under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in 2022 in respect of the alleged cause of action in 2011 is belated and therefore, there is equity in favour of the applicant in OA.No.272 of 2022.
11. Under these applications filed, interim order dated 06.05.2022 in O.A.No.272 of 2022 is vacated and therefore, O.A.No.272 of 2022 is closed. Consequently, Arb.Nos.108, 107 & 109 are allowed. No Costs.
26.05.2022 nst Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non speaking Order Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.A.Nos.107 to 109 of 2022 C.SARAVANAN,J nst Arbitration Application Nos.107 to 109 of 2022 in OA.No.272 of 2022 26.05.2022 Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis