Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Sreenivasa Builders And Ors. vs K.Srinivasalu Reddy And Ors. on 25 October, 2010

 

 

in THE HIGH com:-aw or KARNATAKA, AT. BANGALORE '
Dated: This the 10th dayot December, 1998
I3EF'ORE  7
mm Hoxwam ma. zrusmcn max 1{p.T'a%Vi*::;H;a<R%.I%

~ 

24.5' .A .1vos,579. 580, 600,- ec1;%'~-l6éc': 5-:  »c:~._/'W.

c..~R.P.r¢o. *:'_--.,§4.0;F\ 93 }'
BETWEEN.    "  .1 .  .
game parties" in M.;i?§gs.5?9':'& 521ok»VV.+:'L_:_a_'_s_s_ jg " '

1. M/s. sreeniyasa BVx_J§._3_.Vifl.._e_1~V,<._'._»,

a Partnership firm c_0ns_ti~tg1'cé'd.
under -the Pa1ftné'1'sT111i;§:;L._VA:':'af;, 
1 ts registe re d v¢V£f.1:¢e ' e_t N6'; 

lst crqss<,;;'L;§s--tn jMa's,n{ aw" mztgggsion, '

Banggloécg 5é--..._:56'0._:Q$0,_ -;+e;:;res_ente a.
by 1t.~s..V;«;:%a::,f.%%g1iag<.1§é%':-mgr 3::-1. 9.1:.'

1ate41sr1.'kvD.::[ . Ea-gdu, aged about ¢ %

2;~_ 'M'_1'.'  S/o _

_-5.9 ye§r$,Mané"vgifig Partner of

L "  Sreérzigmsa Buildéngg

'A  ,e;s1a:;:g at No.7/21, _lst cross,'
   T91vt4n-§{1a1'n., KW Extension, '
  BaIf1'ggl<§':e" -' 560 080.

0 0 u u 

 Amy sri. H. Kumaraswémyg Advocate)

\

  1. sz-1'. K.VS17'inivasu1u _Redr3v,
._S/0 late Sri'. Sujdarama Raddy, _

aged about 56 years '

 Nalk 27.u«w'



.-2? .

2.  sm1;.'- Vbefrasénamma, I We
~ S:-1. WK. grinivasulu 'Re ddy,

aged abé-ut.;:§51 years ~

 

3'; »S1fi«t. K'§LKa1pana , W/o .A;V_q' _ M
vijayakumar Bedzv, aged L-;bo§11; ;.  "
31 years "    _
All a%r'e%.K.re s1d1n'g ag'.i;;§';.5.18.  .

c_;M.H.,_ Roads Indiranagara  ' A  
Bangalore ' .~- W' r

4.  smt. n.A.T S:a i';kl§'i§1pI?.;3'£§uba:517$/cfi
S1-.1. D.K. .Aud1kes.aVulr:L,:' a_g_e'c\f. ' 

about 48~'-yet aprs="' -- "'

5. 'S51.5§}g; Srinivaé5;é/6""
fSri.='- D..K., "A %1i3ik9;'$VaV'u,11_1',",ag.G cl, »
a'?9"'%%[23L?¥°m°$y%   V  i  
. V ASmfi%.:  eswari, 'W/o

31-1 -.'  Jvi c-ff -. .AjSr1'r1._va.sg~,. -Murhty ,
a 'ge_ 6 about  V_:s;'e__#(_;":-s'

_ % A;;;m 1fe";siACifig'  at No.7/21,
 'l'::t Crbs--s,__ Extension,

AL éanfgapré - 560 030.

_s/¢'%j%~;s::1. Hgv, ariranga setty _ ,
a'_ge§r about 6'O__years ' '
%'9lT  sr1.'H.s. Srinivas, S/o

 313159 I  o\ Sriranga 
* . aged about 50 years

410;: $1-1; Hgs. Gqopal, S/o %

st-1. H.v;. 'Sriranga Setty, aged j
about 28 yéars L / .-- »%   '

" /gm: asr/v'%4/W' 

I .



-3'. "

11. Sri'. H_.S. seam, s/c '
' sri. _H.S. Subba Setty, aged.
. about 24 years e

12. 31-1. H.s.'cheta.n. 's/o

A .8 . srinivas ,__ "age (3 about

24 ye are

' 13. .,Sri. H.G-.lBahguvir, 
I 31-1. Hos. Gopals' aged about _
5 20.year's. ' . . 

' 14. M/s. Sabari T'rust'  

re'preee1_1'c;e'd'by '1.ts- managzmgre
Trustee, s1'io_H'oSo'   ' V'
Defendant Nos{7  may%j%aeee 
served on C/o.M/s.* 3aba--ri*;--. ;   
T;-ust, No.21, CuImi¥1gE).a!l'1""R£)a <1,  
Banegaelere.   *    . v  "
15.  sgmax.-e *i  e
'._I:r1_ni-t;<,r_,T '1_.2th;::..Floe.r;. 1\Ioa--l'?;, g
M-Ew R°eade;'e1.BaI=;ga.1.o?a-560-- 001

re pre saute &~'§>:7_ 'i,tse~.ecbairman,
Mr.' 'John Sal}  H.:_i.e.'_Lson

17.  5A'r't-1'1.ti1>. '4A11u€"ie:.:'son 8:

. As'soci_ates nu"Pa'rc Ltrinity,

 th 'Flo or; '-M. G. . Rea d,

 '-.33ani§'a1e1:e -pv 56€}"'001 represented
.- f.,by-__113e..1?a.rtner Mr. Ashok Wadhwa

:  Micro svétems
K Interc9ntfi.nenta.1 Operations .
 .p«a_1{c: Trinity, 11th Floor,

1<:"o.3:7, .'M.G. mead, Bangalore,
aepre sented by its Managing

  , _1)1re'ctor, Mr.' J .M. "Heron

" -.J.'.}8. M/sftturner. Morrison.

T 4 Khetrapal

Limited Du Pat-'ck Trinity, 6th;
F1001', A ND".  MOGO R036»,
Bangalore. , represented 'by its
.a'athor1s'ed agent, Mr. Deepak ' e .- .

' - ' x o o o 0 ' 

(By Sri. Km. subba; neaay, Adveeates for 3.1 to 3,

' _ N.B. Chandrachoed, Adv. for RS.4~ to 7,' V 
A   ./r/«A.-/va11vf;u»»+ 



_.4..~ %

 u  ' ' ' " [Sr-i. Kainafch, Adv. for K-15

'  Kflmar, Ad-V0   to  --
Krishtza murthy, Adv. for R-16  K-Go
Raghavan, Adv. for R-18)   

_g3_1;_'§ies in» my-.A.ivo.soo/or 923

 

  BENEM4

1. sum. D.A. sa£rw;,pr%ga;E1g.%, *
8/o sri. DgK. Audikesavam, aged
amt, 48 years'  '  - 

ILA. Audike.savu1[::.,M...aged._A27  ' u
Years '  "i  - 

36  "  '  V'
M 

 D%+é%k;f:e;fe%syz;r1,we
L KJ1."V-Sr1n1iiaséui1u1fi:*l;2;r_', aged
_ about '30V_'ye.ax-s  

 V'"'§..1i'L:A'afeAA_r/o éi§:c'$"§é'47/21, I cross T .
 V.  3391' Santesh Gureaddy, Advocate)
AH 155:. V I >

 »Sr1.% K. Srin1§as.u1r1 Redw,
" "S/o late sri. sundarama Raddy,
aged about 55 years

2'.' Smt..Devasenamma, W/o K.
Sr;Ln1vas.u1'u Ready, aged about'
51 ye an; A '

3. - Sint. K.~Ka1panaA, W/o A.V.
W/0 AOVO  akumal' Reddy, V
A a1'\a\I1'.' 3' ' '

--05 -urn--nu



- 4-. M/S. S143-enivasa Builders, a y

Partnership firm constituted
under' the Partnership Act,

enavingits regd. office at

No.7/21, I Cross, 9th Main
RMV Exztn. Bangalore-80 V . .
represented by its Managing  ' 
partner '.D.K. Au_d;I.kesavu.1t1_ "

5. Sri. D.K.',A~udikeSa\w.'u_"'e» .
S/o late-D.K_. naiau , age._af;a_,b:m1:

59 ye are, Manag1ng_'Parti1erV{cf' 
M/s. sreenivasa Bui1dars.,'f';--N}o.7/illg» _
I cross, 9'VchVMa1n  V--EXvi;ex§sien,''~~'..'jv ,
Bangalore-.89««'    -  ' 

6. Sriigj' disMubb§f'i'ydSé't~:yye,".3/aé '
H .V g ._  ;,:';SV_e*t.1'._'y'"  'aged   L
abo;t_11; 'yfle_.,a:fs}._ ,  ' . '

7; sr1;yH;s.dé::hi§§s,~s/o
H .v . sifiranga dse fame" age <1 7

v'VdH'¢V';--v.y_Srir,§nga Setty, aged

H ~. dabo b.'i':V"_28__ 'srears

',gQ_dSri;'H.S. srianar, S/o

Sri. *H.S'. Subba Setty, aged

 .. Vegbotxt 24. years»

 81-1. 11.3. Chetan, S/o
 AJS. Srinivas, aged 24 years

d11.~ 'sri. 11.9. Raghuvif, HS/o

20 years

Sri. H.S. Gopal, aged about

V vA¥vu?»Ja1h/éz£Afl",



»ff7A_7&5 ..;',-.';u..1""'   7. '.  :/Q,"

  

1 '-6-

12. _ M/Eu Sabari Trust r,epresenteq_

by its Managing. Trustee 'sri.

H.S. Gopal~

V R-6 to 12 are 1'/o C/o 

Sabari Trqst, No.21,
Gullnillgham Road. Bangalore   

13. L.E.C. India software 3 :wT 

_Cantre Pvt. L... Dy £gie_

'@:1n1tY;'12th Flocr, np;1§,

M-('n Road, Bangalpre-56Q.._O'@.1_ 

by its Chairman Jofrin   .4 V 
Sandeer Nielsen ' ' 1 __ f; A' _ V
14. 31/3. Arthur :.4.t3c'.eifa¢a_€s_ " AV .
Assoc.  Tr=1nit:If.  »
F1oor,:!&.G. 139.236'. ._:Bé_a"uga1.cr--é«-1 »

by its 'Farina! "Ashokvv.,W'a«dhwa.§ 
15." " %"H','As'."L;»suA§?:fi3.  

Int"-._eree-a t'ié..3at"a1 "0;$'ex__at in as ,
No.17 , X9 B0 ad»,-. 'Ba;.ziE§l.ore by

its HG Raad;-Bahgaiare by its

V H.331»  Herc-n 

 '._':_'1':'.6.,_ 'fil./_s. Tii:r$2.¢.a:«'Morz1son Ltd.
f«. Du Fara mxinitya 6th Fldor
 __ITe. 'i«'[ ,%~IIiCr._Rpad, 'Bangalore-1 by
" A  'i1:a 'a€i.'1f:h(;§zVieed agent Hz.

'Dee§§k,Khet:apa1 . ... Respondents

" , _ 3(VBy S11. K.'H.¢Subba Raddy? for 123.1 to 3. 3:91. B. " % Kumaraawamy, Adv. fer Rs.4. to 5,. 81:1. ,, Kumar for Rs.6 to 12. Sri. Kaiuath, Adv. 'for 3-13, 311. AK.S. Baghavaa for ResPt.1_6 _ an 811.. A. S. Krishna Earthy, Adv.' for _ Respta. 141:0 15.) - \A ' _h--.---s- '

-J . c£bh4'fiJcU¢LéZLaAf»fl , :?'?§' km;

' Srinivasulu Ready, HS/0 late Sundaramma React;

.7...

i ' 1.

§§RTI§S IN, M.F.g._. 1660 orés

1) 11.8. Subba Asetty', S/o ax.

-Sriranga Setty, aged about ' 60 ye ars

2) H.S. _sr1n1vas, S/o Sriranga Setty, aged about; ' 50 years '9 -

H.So Gopal, S/0 H.V.a._ Sriranga Betty, aged abdu3;";8 years V ,. ~."-'r_

4) 11.5. Sridknr, "sx¢ .H-.,s;;.,'; Subba Setty, aged about:f'2€: "

Years % V. . sr1n1v:as,%..'ajgé'aLv.La4bcua; '%24'i%iL GopaA1s%as6<? %!aahwtkT2O%Years
7) M/S,' *%sab%apmrjus,t% 1§e.preseht_e Gpby its" Managing
- &?:ru$'tee H;Svs___Q9pa1 All 'caIf:é"-.9f M/sysabari 13r«:1fs.1;v,A 1\Tavg.18l,'C\mn1ngham "R03 6,-? j&A'nga1o1'e-560 O02: , SI-'10 K0-mar, AdV,0Cate>) aged about 56 years, I'v6S1diI1g at N0'o5J-8, oH¢Hb Rfiaflg Irisiranagar, B'anga1ore-560 038» Z J4,em- /\/aim «7u~w'
1) K. Srinivatilu Ready, s/o' late Slmdarammafieddy, aged about 58 ye.ars,. resi»d§Lng Mat uo.5:L8 , c;H.H. Rp'ad,: % I Ii1d1':canag ar , % Enga lore-56 0028 2%) Smt. nevasenamma, w/o % ' K. Srinivasulu Raddy, aged? C I about 51'yea1-%s, residing at No.518, c.H.H~. Boad,, Irgdiranagar, Bangalore-560 038
3) Smt. " 1;. < Kalpana , w/o fviaayakumar Redd 5:,' age d.Vf.gréo.uii--._.LA 31 years, res1d1ng.4_~"at c.H.H.H.. Road, Indiraglag-511*,"

%Banga1o1-'$563038 ' 'k No.17, amt n";G;i"Raa'%a,j-'%:,%A"'&. I ' A V [Bang-glare-L-569:: QG'i; -. _ = "

V 5) Sri. :i5.'.7'.<.c,. dikesa.§é-1..xy--- J 8/0 "D.K._ ' 6 ). Sm1:Vx.{j"*4D.AA.V % mm 2...-5:-abha , W6" 9.-19 5d1.3?'¥°V"'a":'3L1"2L A. '- A "ma .V 1?.l'6ik¢'e'saA.va lu, \ age (1 V gbo v.f_n.t: years V T " 'D311.' Adibsavalu, aged about years ' ' W/o ~K.H.L Srinivasamurthyifié . . aged abcmt 30 years ' ' ' Reépondénts 4 to 9 are I residing at No.7/1.21,' 151:. "Cross," Raianiahal Villas"

extension, VBanga1o:-ea,-560 080 [.1 . . .1] 'V1.1,' %."'-

10) .L.E.C. -Indiazsogftware % Centre ?vt. Lt<3."%: Du'Pa_1'G Trinity, lath Fggoor, No.17, M.G, Boa 6, Mangalore-_5_60 001 represented. by its chairman Ivar. John safideer Nielsen

11) M/s. Arthur V L gnderson and Associvaté-S} fflzsg A VParc__'.I.'_1f1niw 11th Floor, "

330.17., Bgad, Ballgalore-560 001? r_efr_a1fe';3e1:3,;e _ . by.i'bs Partner mg, M'T.tpkL'V--w'admvg"- 120 M/s. . Sg11::§:.am_crcj»:' A . Interna ticiqa 3§£'¢;'peraA'tipnS 'pt: V "

i rare rrr'~ni+::>*.%A1'Lth=mo%ors I<%o~1'n , E. G. Rog as, ':-B%;1'ga3.0179?-560"}00l§ ' Re p;?é'sé[x;*:{9§i.d* ' ~1s;§ag1a gihg ' 7 DiI_£'€gtQI' _§q11-'-.'_._ _, i._ 'ligxmx. -

13. r.urfi,;ei:" _ Mom;-isofi' -1.T.y'tfl .V DI; 95123:' L T,1i°}1ni"LN,'6Tah_V2f1O01', 1\Io .'l7,' M. 'G.:_---Roagg, Igangaiore-560 001-, _ . '1-'_efp1_'VeS$1'.1.fI'.é--,d by its Authovrised , V V . ggVen£~.§;1*§V"TLéepak Khetrapal ' .... Respondents .-(Bfsrig K.ZN.' sabbanedav, Adv. for 33.1 to 38¢ ' S1-i-. Ka.i1'1ath am/s. for R410, as.4, 9, 11 & l3(sd). 1 V i

--.."'-PARTIES IE 0.3.? .1~;o.394 OF 92 1 §BE'I'WEfl'§ : ' xl. M/S. Sreénivasa Builders a partnérship firm having 11-,s~ _,(,zwNazA /"___________.___ .

office» at No.7/21, lst C3093: 9th Main,' 33.1~:1._.v'. _ Extn, and alslq at No.17' HOG.

Road, _Baziga1oré represented Managing Partner V _A

2. Sri. D.V. Aud1kesav'n§l.u,AV". aged about 57 years, S/?"a D.K.' ' Naidu % . %

3. ' ant. D. A. %sai-my-apr?_ah1;aV%';V*'«.__a_"~ _:

' aged about 48. years;
Aud1kesavV1Fifl__- " 1.'

4. . D; As ..«_.ég,e.ed--._5a':5o1'1t 27 Y6A1~ g , .j_ D9»K,"--?..'3.u§ik9s':§v1u1u A."7?*"&1£>a¥ié, 5&4" ' 5 V 8bé111:----?-28: years, ,_D;'.g""13."K'. . % . Audil:Vesa%v1uJq'1 6, smfi'; '1'$,j e'§;uvrar1,'.aged %3f3?°u''= 9% Y5ar§.2...D;° D-Ko .%%Aua1%1sesa:vu1u ' 120.6 are residing at N"°:."?:,./1215 I cross, Rajmahal Vila': -1e'.:':tn., B angalore-560' oeo (BY 91- VMoi1an',A Advocate).

AND L V »

1. Sri. 'K. Sringlvasulu Raddy, aged about 56'.years, IS]/o late Stmdaramma Raddy, residingvat in: CQMQHQ . v- Indiranaggr, Bangalore.

A-.42/5.' ' by Sri. max. Audikesavulu H -11- 2". Smt. Devasnenaxiama, aged about 51 years, W/0 K.' .

Srinivasulu Reddy,.,res:1d1ng at Nq,51g, 'c,M,;I, Road, Indiranagar, Bangalore T % l _

3. smt. 'K. Ka1pana, aged :§1$61it« ._ b 31 years, we a.v. Vijayaktimatf at Road, Indiranagarb, Bang'abJV{bre '

4. Sri. H. s. ,Su'6ba'_ S«a££:r'b,b§%i% aged about 60 Ye§I*§,-

/ Srirangé V ~5. s1-1,5: H,:§is'.'_. .$ri£z_i4}as_}, aged :ibo1V..~'1:VVoV7:_

6.}. 8 'steed a bout 28 years , ,' s,<§ b £1.11.

1r aribégai Setty - *: "

~ S';""'SridI1ar , ' aged ' ._ab,9iit'f24b years, 3/0 A 11.8. b A 8--.V___v':Sr-L'; A H. S.----c'!1veta5n, 'aged a.bo11.t 24 years, .3/o A.S. AA SI-Vinivas aged about 20 yegrs, 8/9 11.8. Gopal V --

.. 12'.

10. M/s'. 'Sab'ar1' Trust Pepreserzted [by its V Managing Trustee, Sri. H.S. Gopai V Defendants 7 to lsvmay be» _ $:erved at (3/0. 34/3. Bab_ar1f V _ . T&'."5ta -N0-21: ""Cunn1ngham-Rbacig ' 9 Bangalore - 560 002. ' " "

11. 1.».1a,fc, India s°rtwg_;$'e Centre Pvt. LI.td.,'_ D; Pfarcf ' , Trinity, 12th Flocsx-:',%T~Nc;;,%j:*7}, ' % V 3449-' 'Road; Bangaloz-.a'€-. 5.:/5\01,?<)"o"1. ~ .Repre'sente&"«Tbi" if-is ':3:-airma:'i1f.'*~-.:_...:A M1' . . Jo1'mV '$;'~grfd_e_e1"' I'H.._91.$on", f V . .12, M,/§':..%%_V"A:?m;ur N-1ri'e1'sanm_ énc'.'_: "'Ass_c3é:'ié-.V1;;V=,é;.,a %4 t~1?¢.ARC._' V TR INIITY, I 11th.' %3'1eqrA,%,--:%I3!o . 17 , 14.6. Rpaa, VBa_!v1."'g;4_§1s'o i*9 '- 560 601 14-5-'p1°gseritédV_V its Parnter Mr. ..':A'V§hQk ;%d11wé'«,.. ..... V % - :Sun Micro Systems _V".int'é19évpnt~i1i.énta1 Opera tions Par_c f..--'l'Tr1n1t y, 'nth Floor, , N6... VM.G. Road,' Bangalore A. ,5eoj-0401 AV_"'»-vriépresented by its Managing Director, Mr. J;M. Heron MWAJW:

-13.; > 14.4 M/sn. Tumier ., Morrisfon L_1mited,._ Du Pare Tr zmity, 11th Flpori, Nof.17, 'M.'s, Road, Bangalcré - 560 oo1 _ V representécxby its au'ch_or.:i..S_ed * "
. agent Mr. Deépak 3Q19t!'I:1pa-1_.f. » ; (By Srfu K.N. su5ba.__:nead.y'; AVdve. "'%'ii;;z€_Rs;?1 1:o :f-3,'. L Kumar, A't1sz."'--ffoi' R51.'-'é{t'o 10 86 Sri. ' I<a1nath,%4&av%, utjor R'-~11_)% _i% A11...t.hQe':~cas;£§S "§'\:iVie"order dated 19.1.19-918;_P§$_$ed .i;2"9.$a1'T0».69S'5/*9? on the file or the XVIII"A§di_1g=_ C1ui;y._V€3£;v1_Iv£Fu<i';géé', Banga1o1_'e., \ _<;§;:n3_».':;>V'e':_3.:vv.<'*:s'.§_'1v;1:!_1_*1g7_--:6z1 to.aaym-;near ing, the 4 C915? *1? made "fQ_121.9:i-[tings V '.5 :--~ JEQGM ENT.' A TV fj: §F :: A1_1 these Vap\pea1s' and the Vc1*v11A Revision Pe £;!:1::?Vion arise from. the _common_ Judgment and Order V V"'d/éfed 19th Jan. 19§8 by the XVIII Addl. City V ' "j +/ ' '(§1v11 Judge, 'Bangalore allowing p1a1nt1ff"*?s'6l/If¢cJZr'*-' ' I555-IL*iiiO'III.. It may' be ment1onéd,héré that % I.A.1I whéichhvhas been gloved by the Plaintiffs % «4/a-'N"'"°
-14.-
hadnet been pressed before the Trial 3°?-".3t and so ithas to be taken t havé 13%" ' , » - dismissed as not pressed. These I.As. 'been movea by the Parties béf°re the T_r=5Vr_a1" . court in 0.,S.Ne.6955 of 97 3136583 1..-4*'-1..u1.1.""AaA'~T? not pressee} the court had L 111 5. Iv, and the applicat,fLe11V_I.A;~%;.¢;9§ pressed' is to be taken afii'~sgith(ir§'t&:1_'"ueif_véijgsaaissed * ' as Vwithax.-awn. the __Ce_urt .be1.ew--'..evex:i'm.e ;2t1ei'aed that. _ it 'has been dismieeed eigs I.As. I a V III}-f1a'd ij1;e'ea_xn_¢«}ed«V Renae: orde re 39 Ru1e'8_l1_: &::1ie2' Ciiril Eroéedute, for . short 39 Rules 1 8: 2 was £1153'a'"$§§;;as£*i§§ia§"'a§s5en£ié:si:$ 2 to 5 inlthe suit, v1§';., t_:i'ae m~.As. 579 5. see of 98. élreefiiag thém4'n9tV.'§e® cariykan the business, or of Bank accounts er any _ ac5;1v1t§"'iia the name of glst defendant 's. A AVj.:s7;..1stjpetit1oner in c.a.P.no.394_ .5598 '£-.111 'dis1p§ssa1 of the suit.
" 2." 1.A.xsto.Iu the plairitiff had claimed interim'erder under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC that Defs. f (Z//,_.__ V jJa»--
>_Ae_ 4.. ,...,.;,.. -.r¢......- --..~_._a...~_.:.«a./.2-... N,' V 14 £0 16 be direeted to deposit the monthly rente ' payable by them-in the Cburt pending a1§p5s§1for_ 'V Z > A % L V :f__ e _;f_ the su1t'I:i'z£ 10th.of each monthg =v__=q= * The/application.IeA;I5&uthie~afi§§ieetibfia35?§k*
-I.A.III for injunctions «ere a11dwga by tfiefaf L Trial cgurtfiana d1reet1efis were_gi§en by €he% Trial Court_to defenden$e_§;to"6 restraining them carrying an"the*busifieee;e£fa§e,omJb@erafiion o£ the Bank account pg gfi§ otpgr acpivity in the name of iefigdefefideet til; diefiesal of the suit; while §gfefi§§n§5 1% he leueie directed excifisively to depdety ienfi é&e&y'm§a£h by Ehe¢i0fih of each» em¢§tn;in £fie'¢§fi§£ iiééir. % \ _3."eEI,A{IVxhedTbeen filed by defendants 3 tov6 _; as abeve ih wkich prayer was made as under: e _V _ "For the reasons stated in the é "feceompanying affidavit, the applicants 'ejeidefendants.1 to 6) abovenamed prayga, " thet this Hon'b1e Court may be Pleesed to dismiss the su1t as well as I.A.Nos; 'I & III filed by respondent Nbs.1to 3 (plaintiffs) in the interests of justice." I V . V "Afivu;flddx1U']aAAW,2 -16- The applieatienv has been given as application under siub-sec.1 of ~ ' the Arbitratien G: Citoncilietien E * , 1.996) R/w Section 151 of ::;.2,¢',f:; "£§SEj'sh§%-;'__'ft§«;i Act 6%. 1995". t i i i' ' t' V
4. The appliieetion :o.£V:'defe;;dah'ts--.1A 6, underisub-seetiexi§7 1' of the Arbitratiexi Ceurt on the ground centezitieii ' of...fthe app lieants that .._t:ia:»3i11§ta-inable in View of Section ' awe' .4§r:.j'¢:-g-..'2"1e;;,a£ 51996;' 'it~_s*£epinion was witheut sub- starieeh,' defendante nor the plain- _tiffS"«..have exfiy application requesting the .. to refer the matter for arbitration or te under Act 80.26 ef 1996.
'Before F: proceed to deal with the appeals, I think it fiust and proper to dispose of the éivil Revision Petition, as oneef the firounds Jéfa/uc/\/ca'!/~fi«»' N
-///,,_ ".17- challenging the err is that the suit' been maintainable in view of Sectioa Sfiot tbs _ Arbitration and Reconciliation_Acti$995Qa§d!Fh$ c, Court has erred in takinc t§e'yiew teat §éiY:o u application has been made skier $eetion.8:é3a*_ 1 on account of this error as arroaeous viefi has-been taken by the Court that the soit is maintainable and that the defesfiants 1 to"5fe Plea is without sub- stance, and the 'Court has acted"

illegallv by eaintainiac the temporary injunction order; as wei1f§g by sot dismissing the suit and _hy not reieotisg the appiication'for temporary '3injunctieaEaa&aal§o--by dismissing the defendantsf ap91ieati_ox:[f '..T..ViA-.._:'z'~'Ic gxv. '"é, The learned Counsel for the Revisionists - i applicants sfibmitted that the affidavit to the i"» 'application per se reveals that really the relief .'ciaime§"fias for reference of the case to the Vrbitration. vTherefore it is necessary to examifie ,.tte affidavit. The material paragraphs of the affidavit of Smt. D.A. Sathyaprabha read as under; , "I submit that the respondents 1 to 3 have filed the above suit seeking this vHon'b1e Court to pass a decree, 313, solving the first defendant - firm, > "18--

'appointing a receiver for taking charge of the - assets of the firm and to make on 1nV$nfi¢f?;?l", ' appointing a chartered Accountant tocinvesi§€é§éiW, the accounts, to determine the sngr§f¢£;shé}_= tplaintiffs and to'direct £heipayment*a§ gny.f~~ ' amounts due to them ?iom.tfieffirst=§efen§§fit i ' firm and to deliver to teem their share of V assets, the first defeooefit iitm be fiofind up_ and for such othef_re1iefs, (Tee applications under I,A{Nas.I £6 iii were fiieo for certain interim Qeiiefs; _i fiayejfiied the application under subssectiooseliendyéiof Section 8 of that kfoitfatipn>ehdflCopciiietionAct 1995 (in short celled tné;?ct),ft§ flismiss the above suit. I, Athefefore_fesé?#e:1iberty'and/or crave leave to _ifi1e such ftrtfie: affidavit/s, and document/sis " deeliog with the factual averments made in ' ",i Isésfieiff as and when necessary and advised."

3.} At the outset, I say and submit wt»niL'that, the suit filed by the Respondent Nos;1 toV ".s fa is not maintainable and this Hon'b1e court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and no"

relic:/s can be claimed orjfanted against thev
-19.". I \ applicants hereih and the other defendan,te:V._:in_V_.the suit. I am making this affidavit \ purp ose . of-Si%ett,1ng out oerta in v1 issues: raised herein. and 'th5e"fe¢f--$ thereof viz., that the'va1511o1:2§ 'X3e1i\e_:i','--.sv by the /Respondent 'Noet.__l--~-atoe 3'-which' ~4511b5?.¢'t matter of Arbitration Agz{'?eeu;.en£t'aar_id'tés "such the
-, plaintiffs w1thcoa't_ t_qi"+_;h¢ redie-'ésa'1e or V V their may in Arbit:-jaé:'en....;sr§¢e¢a1ngs, the P1aint1f.VfSD1._togjé"oaIono:t~.V:Vf1_1e '?.;h'ejabove suit and this t'h_as,_«-rvxfe.Jufitediction to entertain the rVe37,ieVf_"oar::2; he'c1'a5_.med orgrantedor reasons:
a) th to 3/abovenalmed and the V :.ap13_11o4an_ts'are."-the Partners of the firstdefendaht tn % 1="'i1,vvh.yzh1éh'ewva~s;' constituted I1hdQI'.' the partnership dated 6.12.1992. Hereto enclosed the V".--.,oi?'i'éi1f1"a'l."ta:-tnership agreement dt: 6.12.92andLa1so the Zxéhox copy thereof.' ' 'L'he'c1aose 12 of the h _ oartnership agreement at. 6.12.92 reads as follows:
% "In case of any "dispute between the iaarties hereiii inthe ordinary coarse of the businese '01' the firm, the same shall be referred to arbitration /<'/am; Na1IvQ7oUwt~' 4 ..-----*-':"""
-20-
' and shall be settled in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940?sdgi, (to It is very clear from the reading of the olsuse 14 of the partnership agreement dt:.6}12Q92"thatafh% p, various relief/s claimed in the§eho§e"sfiit,is,a' ' dispute within the meaning of clause 4 of the=:*x _ partnership agreemat"dt%6.1§.92 ans therefore V' the Respondent N9s.1'to-s§.shs11 hating regard to thetaroresaia ci1'a~Ase "o__f'ff.the'*s:é'esn1ent, ought to have referred the reliefiks eisihed in the above suit to Arhitratioh end shsil he settled in accorfisnssefiith the previsions of the Arbitration A¢vti"'19§.§C, t'"i~s "§Hon"o1e Court having ' regard to the p£c§is1ons of sub-section 1 of
-...--.-ré Section 8'of the Aét; ma? be Pleased to dismiss ;the ahove suit ans direct the applicants to redress ,.a--_----
sstheir*remedy"finder the provisions of the it-Arhitration Act 1940;' The provisions of sub- " '-.Vse'¢'t1e_n'A's:=('i) or Section 8 of>the Act reads as i"foiiows:
"8.) Power to refer parties to.
arbitration where there is an _ arbitration where there is an A."'rn__L_..'»v' ,-.....>v.._'_~. ..._ )-'ALL -.v...._ .._, ,..- ,.,.. . .. ._. _,_ .-. __..__ . ._... .,... ..,. . , 4
- arbitration agreement4(1):~ 'HLA Judicial aufhority before whieheneflsnsv ii i, en arbitration.ggFeeent shall; if Eiei *-' ' a party so epplies nQt.1gte§i£fiene?"4iA V f Vwhen submitting"his1£1rst's£afenemf'f;_"ge on th 5» _subs1;gncg .91' ..
'refef the pgftieérfd.arbitretienfigéin 'From the'readineAe£ fine efqvisions of sub-sectioncl) of Section 8 of the Act, 1% is vesy clear that the suit
-and I,Ames3I_te ii: riiée by tee Respondents are not_ma15gg1§;51§i§hd shssefefe liable to be dismissed .13 lgmgfieggsinerefene i nfey that this Hon'b1e Court hsvinexngggndfie°£ne_provis1ens bf sub--section (1) or Section 2§ef=§he~Aet may be pleased to decide _the naintainebilify ef the suit as a preliminary \ "§{§eue beférewcunsidering the interim applications in A"» V{eA.NeesI to ill and before deciding the issues '°iei§§eivefi*in the above suit. In the aforesaid ' .-.:_..._-~.«u..:_ hr" ,..-x..--;,, .- A*e'pnemiSes, I say and submit that the suit as well ae I } .
y Ise.Nos.I'to III filed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 I ' v i".if°gare liable to be dismiesed with costs. 'I submit i:»'Athat.i£ the eene ie_not §one,_greye and irreparab1e\
- .--s'--.---+"" 2:4...' __-» ....e._~»i~ loss, nefn, injnny enespre3udiée~wi1l~be caused to J/umva:U'~ ._-v_....~=-_..<.::_ 4...,-_.«.....,-,a..__..--.__-<.a. .4-..«.. /V A »-..»_. 34* ._..__....._._a.- __ no ......_ ...._. M" ..-..-.-.
; F ~ -22-he bus which c'annot"be compensated in terms. of-.__I'noney, 'where as no such." prejudice would be cau.aedff..t't>--VV'the Respondeht N_os.1 to 3 aseweo are read.3s{é'.an'I1.'fizifllihg to 'settle' any outstanding disputes--aofpvefi " -, c lause % . 14 of th e par tn er shipfl gi'. teem-¢>'Ax11;_':-'nip; "6 9?, t Later, it has been stated theta; §in:the/ 5 I circamstanc'es,i_ I 'subrni't..V:anda.p:?a:'. .1311-Sit Hon' 516 V'Cour_t inay kindl3?'~,_<iismié's'i:Veithe"a~aboveiéuit as weil as
---------------._-------------*---1""""--"------1..-----_i-'-'t"'* 'I,A.Nos,I to Iii filed by ghéfgaspondents 1 to 3 /with costs" eats .VofT...'V'.'h1'atice."

51 have' "tv9equot!e§.L_ti1e's.,e portions to that se do not reveal that ti'his._\ ap;515.oajtioni._:£:eu1d be treated as applications for' ..;na.};ing._ 9" to the Arbitration; and the AVc_onte4h'ts_:' therebyieveal that thoéqvapplicaitionfi bex't1*---ea«ted and read as applications! under of Ad #1495 ._Seo'ti:ozi"'v8[fo:~ reference. 'It is only an application 'a"§re1iminary objection to the maintainability 0f__"'the"' suit ahdipraying that the suit beidiemissed; Pei-Fusing the applications, in my opinion thelearned Hfcounsel for the revis ionist-applicant has been under misapprehension and was wroog in asserting that

-//'"

| .a@-
'application (IV as 26-9-1997 was: £e.::"x=zéfk;L:ag ' reference. We doubt learned Counaeleeefifiiitt"

that there is no prayer;'-***'b-at application is for refé::.fe'x-See-.,'t' that - had to quote the a'pp;ica'tieh almost, the reievant*»§>éragra'pha3tt & {1 thereof in Particula ._ I eat this V cententien application' ma da §..£é£vvV1'i*efere;aee. ' 7.2: '?v.A~'o£';t'he _Act at 1996 for the puf:p'ef$e§ éiefines Vwhat is an A 'agrbj. traatieju bagfifeeiixent . .x S'e'ct19n 8 of the Act reads as under:

_ _ "1) A jucucial authority be- e fore-which an action is brought in' a matter; which is the éubject of an 'arbitration agreement, shall. if a. party so applies not later than than submitting his first statement on the .24..
substance of the dispute, j"
the parties ta arbitratieauE5eff
2) The applicatioh £e£é:ied7*,'&:
to in $§b;sect;en 1;) shali get be u "
entertainea i aecempeaiea ; 3* ig§ri§5,'nal erbitfatietn agreemefit; _oi'__ ai; ied »copy I thereof. L' V» I figifiéithetehaixjag that an made finder "" end that the issue iéfeen§i§§=§é£ére the judicial " _ Van arbitrationimay be or continued and. an A. eibitral awaga made.
'Se<«".'.t..ioVIV:i 2:'-ieja:VJ'.' s with the interim 'measures by the Court anci""'--1t=.§feV$5es that - interim ordere the Court can ,:pa:s§ efen du;'i_ng the pendency of making of the . A.;5i£ra1 award. '$eet1on_ 9 clearly reveals that /Jam NcE'11~'7~'3'~"*' é2$F 'Couft shall have sfime powe for making drders as it has for the purpose of; and in rélation £0, any proceéd1ngs_ b°f9"e.1t- Section 3 of the act only ae§i§f§;£h_;he reference to Arbifration and it provid§sitb§f"f§e°i Jfidicial .Afithority;before which agy aétién is hhéughg Vin a mattef which is sub;eatqgatfieraétiarbifirafiibn ' 'agredment,-if the partips s6,§pply,n§§ ifitéfi théh; the submitting of the-firfif sfatamént of substance of fihe\dispu§e for referénée c: fihé mattér t6 the 'Arbitration fihenx£h§-Jugigifiiifififihorifiy shall refer ' the parties to Arb1ttat1op,i'"
9. Suba$e¢i§J9f'$a§tion'3irgqfiirés app1ication'i una§p_sup;ségt;o§°(i)~sfig11 not be entertainable Luniess it 1s§§¢om§afiied;by the original arbitration' agréemenfii¢§ifiidui§*certified copy thereof.' It furfihéfxpravidééithétvnotwi€fi§tand1ng fihat fé9Diie§tidfi"ha$haen made udér sub-section 1 and A'=,fhgfi is§ue is pending before the judicial authority V'Q§fidi§r§i£r§tion may be commenced or continued and an A.§rfiitfai award made.
ViuVj10;* Section 8 駧§oted above provides that if.a '* fiérty applies t¢ thy Judiéial Authority orCourfi_that the dispute in teffié Q£.the parties is subjéctamatter -26- of agreement, then no donbt the Judicial Aethority is required to make reference to. the Arbitratioaéia» provided. the subject-matter of dispute is covered"

aerkiitration agreement or the terms of a neonate ined in the agreement .' 'the requis itQ?f0'rV -Cef'e:e'nVce application isnthe prayer refier 9 arbitration} Applying the restdof tioned in Section 8 "!:ons.Vider--.,1-;1:1_e 'i"a§p11¢au1¢n dated 26-9-1997. Ido ngaevéina-»..eA thé£"--thes$ ppiications fullfils the reqnirefimenthsié 8. In this View of the matter. in myiicourtiwas just- ified in "no"afi:}:ii'ica:tion had been made 9 for./thef' and when no application it he said that the court hasiiigo 'proceed and decide the suit or I that deal with suit was ousted.

The suitVwe.e:_V"r'ighfit1y held to be méintainable and 9 Zdjgppiieation i.A.1V was rightly dismissed and _ jurisdigeional error on the part of the fioerit in dismiesing that application. If the to Veappiiieation hate been made for the 'yr 'v.,p{1rpose of mating reference under Section 8(1) of the Act no Court had to examine the questions Whether the dispute involved is one 'which comes within the JJW; zvcwv 9

-2f:{.-'- ' terms of thevarb3.t--1?at1'Qn clause or not. not come tharé would have bean no question of arhitrafion _ afly-way; Fbr the present, I find ha ;@i1sa:¢£agng1 '.error on the part of fihe Court be1awainfaismiSéing'; that appliaatioh nor any sfiafi érkdr has bagfiafioihté£'7 a'out which may be Said fio«camaafiifihihafifia ffafiafivrk of Section 115(1) c1au%§§.g (%a )",f_M(h)aT'}9;-'ja1.(¢a>»:VojrVane"

GPC;4 Thus consiqarag th§j§ev;sian.9§t1§1on has got' ' 'n_o merits and it 135 a1s§11s_sed.' The order impugned is maintg;fied wifih n§fé?ahce'£o I.A.IV filed in the suitéfr
-11'... ,.As}'f'tii'e1"f<r;:Aevisfia§iaha:s_.bé'én dismissed, now remains thé_qfiesfiénm§f_fh§*3fipéala taxbe cons;deréde- N0 . 'doubt fiaidfiai§abii1§55of the suit was challenged on the grafififi qf*$éé£i§n 8 of Arbitration and ' i¢on9i11at1dn Act as well as on the ground fihét §he "npartfierahip'fias not regisyered. 'The~Tr1a1 Cqurta . agafiéffigraa this matter in greatar détail and opihed L'tha§'fihg suit for dissolution of.partnaship dogs naf...§éfi debarred,°§§_i1t. cannot be 'said 15o be not . _ £n_a1nta1nab1e.
18; Sub-section 3 of Segtion 69 of thé partnérship 1W_'@/a . V, fig,"

. -

'g1 .

3?

§ [ _28_[ Acfreads andpirovidesfl as undeii:

-kl 1 , «section 69(3):- 'TheoproviszazzsV»: _'__o"Ii "
of sub-s'ections 1 and 2 shall a-p§1y:+o.',: A I A V "also t0a'".'.;'i?a{iim of set. ~ - ' proceedings to enfoxjce _a I~_;1"g!f11: _a_1.'__isi'I1._8 ' ' % ' from'a'contract,'but'tsha11 not._affSc't;'~.. '*._ _ '(a) to 'enfo:v:;":@_g1;§ of '§.r_A1V_1z_._I"'1_Vg 1:'::'A' 'E0 " V _§_I_;§_ for thgé d1sés_o12:,tio;1 of '*a_.:£1r;ii or . H , for, accouz1;_1;'§~«.of.'_VAa firlinuor any " ' right or'hohVfirmo--fiiojraieéséwthe A ~ » . property oAf"'a»-til}.-S'sLo_'lvé.é1'_ g ---5.' 43.3 \ W, ;;:-4-« oif-VVt1i'e».VV.$ecfiioh' are not méter_ial. So, in' that"t1j1é'_soit foioitiiéssolution or the firm, even if .i 9 V I V';;bhe»fi1fm"':araVéounxfegistefed, cannot. be said not to be *:o"zr1.a§?.'i::11'.é'.':3rA1_ablVe; MMMMM "It rightly held .that 'Section 69(3) oao:%¢oog;ctoooap91y to the suit. % V '
- ;m:Lx".~_- :«a.u.-" '»=,e...=t'. .'.. -tnv :2 u.'._c:. _ % A"-«..,l3,f* enough the 1é.ar'ned Caunse1for5 the }% A A ajzvyollant 331. K. Ifi1mara'§wamy was justified 'in me!'
--.. §=lfia11en_ging 'chat f1'nding% of_'_'ch'e Trial Court. Suit, aassucfi for dissolution or the f1rm'waslmainta1nab_1e fig % ' ' _V L , V__'Cou12t was ;]us't1 f1ed in holding 1 :a~*»lx'r\ ' V '.29.. V and as the suit was maintainablei,' in-. could' not be dismissed on these technical grounds, questien had to be "cons idered: Whe prima facie case aaé. in HAY 593-H5-°"'o Ftiéél» Ceurt was justified in holéingéthaltlifilfiéim ' epflrima facié case to be tr1'e§§.:1'i"'ePr1fi-a_ jfcééei enly 'means that thenefi.-5 a ease' which 'VVi..If1Y0lVife5l faagerial substential czjiieefiiens bf. llfi'-5-'t llélind 13"

ta be e1eterm'1necaf' agad jahfs§ae";e¢i'ieA1;e£o;é"Asu'1t'can be _ de¢.,,eed_ . In the'"p';a'1g.»; may allegations alleged t9:V'be'_ 7°13 F1013 be °f)' misc onétiet ta 6 have beeiz mag 1 .frhe$5ae alleeenfiiehs' lfiisconduct or whatever V fbe.V:have_"Vbeeneinade against the defend- anlis' Eula' and have to be tried and berecorded in course of trial the--- means they were triable issues in «V "~«.ghé"e'.3fi;:1&-,& andvvliiiiere was a prima facie' case made out. ' ease of nALp,a;r KUFAR &_ANO'I'HER ..vs- Aénéca (A'.:.'a. 1993 s'.c.l2'76l); 'their La;-asnlps ' of Supreme kéolurt laid dawn the basic principles AA '31'-0 fie 'kept. in V1IE%XgIb5-13..Vt3§e':m31;te:t"of. grant of injunctiohss "male 1 primarily conlcernsb évith ' f,.he,preServation ef the property in' L .-3Q"

dispute-till iegal rights are_ adjudicated.' injunctien is a . . judicial preeess by which a p§yfi§"flVez . is refiuired he do or to refrain h ¥*:¥ ' from doing any particular acfigq ". _ » _ Tit is in the netudée relief to a- 11t1g.§nt'~1§Jc5' prfiént future»possibié;injfiP?e',Ine6£herm~3 % Words, fihe cofiftein_exere§ée of} ' hfihe'powerepfhgfehfi;néKad-ififierim 1njunctib§"is_E§ pfesehhe the subject matfier 9f the euit in the {Shafts Qucjfér the time being. A _i;awgthat the gran-t of ____ _V *,ihjgggt1chf:s é fiiscretionary A1e£alief.gEThe,e2erc1se thereof is VsuBjec£~§b_£he court satisfying xu hthet'(1)=£fiere is awsgrjous I I "disputed question to be tried in zAthe"suit and fihat an act, on he w, facts before the Court, there is _ VVVA'.e~pr'ebab1l1ty or his being entitled:
the relief asked for by the 'V p1a?1nti'ii£r/defendant; (2) the court's interference is necessary_ 'to protect the party from the ' species of injury. 'In other words,' Aeirreparable injury bf damage would - /Jaw New/~'7°"*""

. VA ___,,,>--»'"'5*'fl"

.33, ensue before the legal right wcu1dV;' 'h' K be established at tr1a1;; and (3}33 *_"

',£hat the comparative hardship orft 5; . {mischief or innconveniéncé ' likely to occur rrgm w1th;hoid1fig 3' % the injunction wiil hé.gfeateg7th§fifh %L 'what would be 11ke1y$£oJaé1§e,£;om§_fVh .3Panting it.*h{ .h' h" --"W.' ..l 'A * what 1s prim; £ac1g:&§s駧heirhj§rd§h1ps §bsgr§ed¥qj in this very §e¢i$1q; 65 the Da1pat_Khm§: as ' under:V ,. ;°@=@§i$a faéie éés§.iS npt #9 be . _, _ { héfiftsga with pgimg £a¢1ef£1t1e}hC i V'9eVi6ghu§ at the trial; :Qniy §r1ma'h V"£éci héa§e is a substahtialhquestggn ' féisédg hone fidel.w1ch'heqg§'.' 'R"ihvestigation.and_§J§ggg§;gg;9q _ 'méfif.§ Séhisféhkidn tha£:therevL {'ais3hprima facie-casé by itself is 2 "hot sufficienfi to grant ihjhnction. The Court further has to satisfy" I .that non-interferénce by fihe Court would result in "irreparable injury"

=. to fihe party'seeking relief and ' that there is no other remedy favaiiable tc the party.except one MM» /\/cad» 74/W'
-32-5 '< 5:
to grant injunction and he neeés' protection frem the consequences of apprehended injury er d1spoesession;§ is. In the present case, as I have meetieeed ear;ier that bonafide issues heve been r§iSed'feE t:i§;5,' which required to be de?:e}:*n1inea..'aftexfireeerdvizag'T of the evidence. _3o. nezdetbt tfié; Cefift Qt? ejuetified in coming ta the"cene1u$iéfi»that thete its a p_1;ima facie' caseL"'f;er.VVtria_"1 A but any Qpihion expreééed-qt ;§e.mét1;§ ct tte claim one way or the.othef¥eii1 net fiififi during the eourSeT of the ~.:§ ria1 _' there is a suit for ats§éiut1e§_e£ the perteership under section 44VQ§aima;aeeEattneteti§ Act, as per language of Sectiét;4;4nfl1f.:Vt'iée' suqnt isbareiy based on the xgrounés_fie§ticned in Section 44, then Court has got \_ jutiédictiofittevéissolve the firm: if any of the ' ":e3¢tagnde mentiend in Segtion 44 axe established; ettefifififi has to be dieselved. in cases where the? 1"§Eeen§s"under the law are established, but it tfie »_graenes};te not established, without expressing ' ":§hy'epinion at this momea&}I mfiy observe my doubts ebout dourtfstaeereing the suit. The propoe1t1onV ' urged that the Trial Court hae'even thenlto decree- the siuit. though no rounds have been made "out I have ta hale} that? >1 aim enable to acceptvV.tk=:1'is.V.centent. ion. The case may be a different gun"-. has been» filed for dissolution grounds tn available may a different pesitierz, ll *1 ";¢'«s?'iff¥.
that the plaintiff in' that Veaee g;é<._,';_,v;_¢_a_a;V.:1 he has given the notice £'e'r.V'Vai_sselutioi-if ef§1:he' firm in A . writing, ccuimunieeting'Vnthe-:'¢éVte._Aof ciiéselution or he . has eommunieatedlltlfze Q£ee.T5e3e's9lfitien,v (1/wflthe "date at ¢c;m;un1ca'e1--<§g; 5? has to allege on what gi§;en__ getice end on what date, he Veissolutien of partner- _ :'::f_fl-- 91; date the :notice had been served.' Fldder Section 43 has been taken er g§v1eeV&.ed}.'._l'AehtLertain doubt if suit can be decreed, Qeuvem theta dissolution of partnership without underV$ec'c.1on 44 being made out. when _ for dissolution of partnership and '.__44'V%ac¢e£1t§j;.'e, there are allegations of irregularities, illegalities, mismangement end impreprietiesy alleged AA ted have been committed by the defendants in the coaducr ' "self business' (as per v_arioueparas of.plaint) and WNMMW' <_____,= 'v;;,,_.~_., «..,.v,«.u.._.=~ l_--.4.-V.-.»......'.
-34.-
heven fraud on the part of dfendants tfif teen alleged. whether these allegations érég §§sg¢ on misapprehension or on justifiéé'g:§é§5é;f1t_ is a question, no doubt ta be éttérmifiefi byf _f the Trial court. but = and both parties malge ai1¢'§;e;¥;1¢-gt allegations againétvtéeh other} Suit has get to' be aec1aea,.l"£:2;ten s;§¢:axv""a._s1i:£zéli:1:$;a in the ing terest of juttléefafifitbélthtéagf écnvenience requ1r¢d_th§t heip§r§y!sto§l§ be allewed te cause agnxaégé g;.«$;+;i:;:':'gs:&oper;y of the firm or bfi§ifié§s_én%jt5 grab thé profits frem the firmfs %'Suss;:¢sé:;"'.4.;i'~s§.fien é-féituatlen. no' doubt Trial Géurt :9_fi§s'r§stréin§étt§e defendants frnm making use-of.the firmfsfnafie"f§r his/their own business. This '" aalggétfitnudlreeting the defendant that he shall f5fnét_make use of the firm's name for his own\ i:§:"»--..bu4é;;g;§.ss cannotbe said to be not _1ust:l.f1ed,onsTiaJx v_t.d.xé?§i:i:a1tely it was justified.' factions 14 s. 15 of r:Pértfirsh1p Act read tegether provide that property N of the pa;tnerst1p.sa1l be used exclusively fer the purfiese ef the business of the firm. Thai goodwill of the firm and title of the firm i¢h1e'h J4/an McvM4"**'"' 4»/"'/gfif f includes firm}; name, also as per Section 15:?-:as' te be utilised eitclusively for the puicpese of the b.u$1ne$$'o£ the firm and not of ind1vldu8"l..VVp§y§:i?tners, audthe property ef the firm has been Segtion 14 as td inélude in itself the firm. when tlgxisk is the"i'lab1_1§;ty«e?§"'t'h§ he cannt be npermitte-d te »'¢;>f,: er"

pi' eperty of the firm 1;~$g:'1:;§a1:§g'v- its _géed%jill.:le1ttAéE for the purpese of nlbueiness, nor for purpeses ot1ierwi§:§~..,,4:ha;;iV :«?;gL;1_:;s;'ize,;ess firm itself. Se the direction of Sectien 14, not to use the.--eame defenaants for their . own buejlgxe.es',_?'%aVnd§:<§t'VVV'otherw1se than fl. g;bt:zsvi.__z:1_¢_3vsv.sV~.§>':::'."V1>V'a':§:V_:e_'Q}aVe field to be illegal. The fire: caléeelved may have to' be continued, so ' that':lt' idle firm, it'sAgoo'ds cannot '.2- allewetl' =1-.e' ultllliéaveé by individualé partners for their' V_'bE.xs;L_;:'4e:sVses.A"".... ..... xfeference to Appeal No.M.E'.A.No.166€;3/1998', it ._ V"l3t;as"'t$ee;1'edhtended M. Kumar representing I<tvnnarV Advocates, contended that, as contended' by the appellants in the other appeals the V' n .«§u1Vt" was barred by Sectien 69 (2) of the Act. Sece- V*-tien 69 (2)_ of the Act: The sdit primariljfis for dissolution of. the partaetship and acceunting, in particular the suit is meintainable fer disselutien /dfle/Vazve' __//...l and ferLaceeunt:h3g, Sri. Kumar, \1earned.Adv.o_cate I contended that. really suit against the .é§p;ee.1'ients in M.F.A.No.166e/98. the suitshould "suit." net méiiztainable. beeause they ere..§t_taeee'r$ to"

partnerehip and Section 6°:?v"J(é'V) 'del;>éz.;~s:'ttepevrteeyrs 15.? unregistered firm to file . contract. he sn1m11ttea._j-wet it enferei-fi'59=':1_;he contract o£ -3'9ifi'C '15~3V_é1ope§ent Agreene at ' dated 24-1-199ev.;:_"'*V~4,
17. I 3m,_t'ln*_3b1v¢V-- tontention,' really in the t:;here""§_s"":1:¢:§*:.§_:.e-ah?claim of enforcement of the Simply for dissolution of.»paer.t§'e'te:§:.;no 'i1'.w--':.§'e plaint it has been all- egedfi. "19"-7-1996 in--- question: was e:h;fV'eothority by deferflant No.-2% and; §1'evfenda}1t.s_ '67'1to'V'14; ar:'&-'without consent and knowledge
-[$52./,thee1.p1a1r;£i'££s; and lander that oolloboration,Ci:(luu,yu' V * "Was trying to take aver property, but the plaintiffs 9f the profits and the rental '."'a;;3'{y:hé£her M..o.U.' was valid an; invalid, whether it V to ,_'wae"'}¢:>:§.nding' or not and whether it was the result of Hoollusiontbetween defegggggg and '7 to 14? As such . , W It on an allegation. made/the defendants 7_ to 144- the defendants were taken to be proper parties to, be T ' J '1«LAJV''''*' /-
'Int: the case of LOONKARAN SETHIA -vs- MR.._
-37- s proper- parties' to lie impleadvede 'and ri9h*?l_Y 30 t.heY have been impleaded. Furfiiier defendaPFV_:'1.'¥'T_14f'5 the tenant hasalleged in the plaint ?t'9jFant ' of the finm of defendant no.1 and..A4's%1i1;_T:'i$~--f0--?'? accounting of that firm and in 0!¢§?vt9:9?V§"3F"»_ ofiportunity to defendanztks it .:V egations against than of ¢ ._ 011 #4' "if they have been ;m_p1eaLd--e<if,,. it. bi? 'S$i€1_S'1'1t.' is teen force any a.g};_;é_,§ments:»:: N9 wsectlon 69(2) bars a suit, toenbfofce: a_¥'i9i1'i'~1.::31.?5-S4'-F%"'9 pfmm 3. contract, be5_h'g institutecietby :3 firm against a "

third party ufi*1te5.s'--tl'.-iei. firms is registeredi and thefi Pe$7son's.~.su1ng_:.,...u.-' ' wshewn in the.reg1ster as 'applies only to "erifdrce the right. .

between the unregistered' "._:Eir,ms _o1'..Vi¥ts;Vpa._:t:;eVrsr: and. the third party... The pieVs%entx'sutit "d§_es not 'appear to be the suit bf. such "as__ hVatu:1:e instead it is a su:l.t_ for dissolution rship firm and accounting only as per 1 :::"p_1a4tint'_j..allegations and the relief clause.» ATThe« iearneci": Comrrsel for the appellants relifi "on"cHHmE LAL -vs-' U.P.. S'I'A'1'E Em.2c:*RIc;1fy Began. _ (A.I.R. 199<:m_VALLAHABAD 27)... This A11a§3a.bad decision"

is of no help" to the appellant... as this decision-. arises from a suit filedby the p-Vartnexr of that :_Eimm to enfbr as the righttar'ising~ under the contract???' A /WW' , ._--["--
§ §%
-."3'8-r ..
EVAN E. JOHN (1977(1) s.c.c,379)) in Pa?aSf3?h-21:
their Lox?dsh1ps -'observed: ' V' _ "A bare glancé pf K to Show that it is mandatory ifi'chér§c#¢b"

'and.11;s euffecfg: is .ij.'d'----Ifénder . plaintiff in ré'3§'éct>cgf'--ah?1~.1gh€":,f§é'é£éd ' h1'xfl_,o1;acquired:_.b3f:'ia1ir:-._jundef' :8_ CvQ£1tI''aCt ' which he --e.i§;'~t_e_r?_ged;_;'.f1't9' _a partner Of an unrLeg=is tar ed _f.i 1°rii exi sting 01' dvisjselvegii, 'v'oi.d. bthér words a 1.6:' Eur; e;{s:_1;g»ihi:2L"e"' unregistered ~ up§fthérshi§ firm cannot hing a éuit to T' 0311: of 'anconfi-act .fé1iifig w1§hin~£he_amb1t of section 69 4' _of Act. In the instant __iSE§S£_éé i % -~--+---;-:--

% A . « 7.& Co. wasggpt registgrgg ghflgrbfihg VV gshgp Act, It fignngfi 1;" 5» '"}'figg;gg_th§t thg suit out of which fihg innsa;§_ha1a_a21§gaJmas£9:_sn£2:9sm t of the agr ____é_emen_t~ Aentg1_;g¢_ into bx__ig§_ . g;g;gt1rr gs gartner 6f Sethixa.& co, ggiph w n r % st»r a_g;;g& That being so,__the suit was undo1_1bt'ed1_y a K, so . I \V .
E A 1;' . ' .
., r ' . . _, _, ._ - _.:3 9] ' .
suit for benefit_and in the interest;, "of thé firm and csnsequentiy a suit on , behaIf«§§§'the :1';-m. It 133130 fié .b0rne in mind-that it was never bleddéd i, a"
i by the plaintiff, not" even' in V: V"

1§gplioa't1on, that he:-wastnauing.;t§'inre¢o«¢ert'niVn outstandings of a fliésoltefi firmgi Whoa 71:

':the suit has-clearly hit'bj saot1ont69?"
Vof the Fartnershipféct and was not ""3 t maintainabie. 2 t X it '~""?, -_>: 2 _-::A'.: .'--." 2*»-._.;g' "_.i:1'»£'~_\ *;'_~';"».:.. :-._-3: Q-' :';':"~ _The qbservationo'q1eériy}r§voai'that, really suit 'in that oase'wa§ to enforoo tnn fights arising under ;. V t t the éliogé&iagnee$¢nt_nnditheif'Lordships cleanly laid? ¢3oté,rj_:_r"1';.V_1.:h.é_'t» thé charactexéj referr-edin fifiolseotiofi é néno not figintainable by find on be- h'a1f;_or firm against 5 third. party. 'Hero, the pfésént suit cannot be said to be one for 'V ¢ggénforcement of any agreement. Thps considered, in anfii~iJ7nm§:o§inion tné suit has riéht1y_been he1d.to oe __ it it u7n§int§in§p1e# The contention of Sri. Khmer ist H, i =°reje¢§5a.
V A fig; Sri. Khar contenied, definitely no relief haov"

t"_V:fl§beon clained égéinst him, but the interim relief had _' ,been grantedggainst, so interim re1ief_cou1d not be tgrantedf. I [aim g_néb1e,te aeceg/>t this <¢:ont.ention..--A '20.' % Here, really nor; doubt suit. is against the partners 9f the firm; the aliegatimm. is that Ma0.U. came into existence fiitfimtte resfiit_. ofi collusionybetween de£etfientg37 to ififefifi the 1 t defenfiant Eoezg M,Q.Ugbefite;ed3Qittent.é$yJt*, afithority§~no dcubttfifiethefijthatuteet{is§éonreét:t or not is to be decidea§by,the Trial fiourte 21;. The. Dispu _i7s.:" 3 zrgneeiaer %¢.:ae~.,£ér::nts"1:; qflxestilon. A5*1@;tB&{§efemfin;414li5fthe,tenants$f .... ..§§;g::bf'eci.e1;fef1dants_t 7 to '13? it gs coatefidedfithet defendant No.14 hes been the V teneht'Gf the defendant's firm? This is again at =§fdis§ute{'=S9 when this Question has to be decflded; then to maintain the inccme franjproperty in safe; . hehfie §s well as to protect the suit property; thes' Cburt has granted temporary injunction directingc: It ' T on "defefidants 14 to 16 to-deposit the rent in the/and t"e there appears no ground to'tnterfere» 'e22. Srig Kumar further submitted that M.O.fi has:T -41- also been ehalienged in afisuit} namely, Q3S.No§v 786A96, He first attempted to submit that the A.present suit is barred; but later sfibmitteé that this subhission is not being presaedg ii do néfihg express any opinionm 23; In the course ef ahgufitsAiheM§F;A{ii566#ef 98, it had further been Sfihmitteapthet ifiése far ae that' case is concerged; theie'iS up hath dispute about 40% share betweeh"thg§gattiesg'_As per agreemtg they are entitled t6"4dg §e§t:o§ éf the built area. The question isa. huh it 9111 eéfie 40% out of 100% is agaiq a §;s§u:§ it will have to be decided hy the §Cefiht?be1efi?_ Bet thetheuestieh is not open now to be, "de¢1ded{57a:'f° W h V 1u24§%'shri; kgfiée & Kumar further urged that tria1L idouptgsxfligectimfi go de£eadanthNos.14 and 16 tQ\ afiepeeit the tent in Court is based on hon- Heehsifietation of the defenents?*14 to 16*y 3iiahi1ity_to deposit manicipal taxes. 'That appeal z=Nb.l660/98 is not the One filed by defenflants'14 to >16, the alleged tenants therein and the tenants haveL not filed appeal challenging the ditection. This /</mm .4 2;.

Court by 1;;o:_ub1e B's.K. Sanglad, _J, on» 27__..2..199's, of 1990 passed the following ordethwhithfapfiears to be justified one, it reads: »if.".

" I-Ieairrd A re > let' . .

the intereet of jfia£ice,c l thi9h% teJ}

-meet the'end§ko£ justice} the following ord er Pile 1. - ., i V" V' H Lflyfhe olaihtiffie and defendants--1 .,;¢.6 in 0;S.NoQS9S§fl§7 are hereby directed {thin any manner alienate r lease out the "" " __ fitoperties whichsare suhyect-matter_of Vle_this suit, .The defendants 1 and Zéshall 1_¢¢1;éc§5my1,5o;ooq/- from the occupants u_ V énd¥$;4;55,0o0/~ from two tenants.= Gut V Z 'cf this 'amount: of Rs.6,..15, ooo/--,. the Kdefendants 1 and Zishall Spend towards' V the maintenance and the current expenses:

ikof that building not exceeding Rupees' three lakhs.; After standing the money for those purposes the remaining balance. shall have to be deposited in the joint» account in the name of the plaintiffi _Noa1 and defendant No,2.- The defeniants shall have to give the account of the 'statement of the expenditure every mohth_ "
vivhile'-' admitting Appeal Nos.:.570,.. se.o,4;"v5}so§~'a;d some ' to hot to put up eny further construction or within mth greferrablfia before the «trial Qourt" eIf_theVderefidants*ereee likely to incur mbretexpenditgre.§hée"c« 125.3, 00,000/-'-, they shall file--.an:f"--['f--' T .> application for the this' ._ Court . "

2'5... Adopting 15;.-e._g; ..aateaé * '27..2.199§ - 11:: is fimjther pioviaea rrmicipal .* taxes pavabletfonr vhou.s':es;_~*eor bu§ild--.:I.ng', includingfi'Se,u:'7o'<»( tenanicy of aej'f'¢naa~gt,_5.1'e._'cc$~:;e involved shall also ' be £215-Yable under": expenses' the; expression by defendantsl _arfl 22 Who --.t1iev refitlal etc. as mentioned in ' tha..V.o'3.«»3#=;; z§.q§_;;;1§'era:'1:ae£§s::r1ants; submit es the court the éccoent of lficome and expenditure a copy thefieof' ulvshall to the parties who may raise obj<ectioxj,sA{~tlt1e--reon and Courtlshall dispose of lobjecti'*on§___«and passenecessary ordere thereon. That" ' theldecirsi on of suit the above arranglementl v 1 maintained and underjtrial Courts. erthe may'*bel invested" in long sta '_7'interest f' 'earning securities 1:: Nationalisedl Banks 'as well in . * o 'new' L . ' the joint name of plaintif:E,anc'l 'defendant No.2' to be finally disbersed accordtlpgt to final' decision in the suit. V ' V L . _ _-

-44- A26.e Thus.c>nsidered Civil Revésion Petition No. ',394_of 1998 is hereby dismissed and all Appeals are hereby finally disposed of ifi-terms of directids as paras 24 & 25 of this order including the Qffler dated 27.2.1998 gassed by Hon'ble Sanglad subject to clarificationficafifij&itecticns k made and given in earliet fiért cg thi$<ctder éfte;L"

tquoting Hon'b1e Justice fiaK§e$anq§¢$'s ofiié3;"cTheA trial Cou'rt's ordeIf <2:1f4i"r~..I.A.A.IIj2E :41»; 'é§:a;avd--':n{od1':Ewied to that'extent._.. ttr1ae;L;:""c2os*+.:;¥. age 1.:9 15¢? borne by. - parties themselfies tespectively. The Ccurt belew is fiifiecteé an expected to deeidg the matte£.expe@itieu§1y with cooperation of éaytiés afidtfiein Cduc$e1sm