Calcutta High Court
Rajendra Bajoria & Ors vs Sudhir Jalan & Ors on 12 April, 2017
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen
ORDER SHEET
GA No.1218 of 2017
With
CS No.79 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
RAJENDRA BAJORIA & ORS.
Versus
SUDHIR JALAN & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN
Date : 12th April, 2017.
Appearance:
Mr. Pratap Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rohitendra Chandra Deb, Adv.
Mr. P.C. Sen, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Joydeep Kar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. R. Sen, Sr. Adv.
Mr. D. Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. S. Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Adv.
The Court : The plaintiffs claim to be the heirs of the original partners of the partnership firm Soorajmull Nagarmull. The plaintiffs say that the other partners of the said firm are in the process of receiving compensation in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is going to utilize the said funds without giving due shares to the plaintiffs/petitioners.
Mr. Pratap Chatterjee, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs has referred to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a proceeding arising 2 out of the acquisition of a valuable property of Bhagalpur and submitted that over Rs.3 crores would be receivable in respect of the said property towards compensation.
All the defendants who are represented by their respective counsel are almost unanimous in their submissions that the plaintiffs do not have any locus to maintain the suit as the predecessors of the plaintiffs who are partners of the said partnership firm have walked out of partnership in the year 1980 after receiving their due shares inasmuch as the plaintiffs if at all have any right, would be required to invoke the arbitration clause contained in the parent partnership agreement being Clause No.7. It is submitted that the suit is also not maintainable in view of Clause 5 of the Partnership Deed which says that the partnership shall not be dissolved and continued with the remaining partners and none of the parties and/or heirs who have inducted as partners would have any right to claim dissolution in any proceeding in a Court of law. The Court at this stage is only concerned with the preservation of the property which in this case is the monetary compensation receivable by the partnership firm and also to preserve the right of the plaintiffs, if any, in the partnership.
It is submitted on behalf of the defendants that a contempt proceeding is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the adjudicating authorities have failed to act in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as such, the apprehension that the defendants had received the amount and thereby dealing with the said funds is without any basis. If that be the factual position what the defendants have submitted, it has some relevance. On the premise that the adjudication proceeding has not yet commenced the defendants are directed to intimate to the Advocate-on-Record of the plaintiff as soon as the adjudication proceeding commence so as to enable the plaintiffs to pray for further reliefs as claimed in the petition. 3
Affidavit-in-opposition shall be filed within three weeks from date. Affidavit-in- reply thereto, if any, shall be filed within one week after reopening of the Court. The matter shall appear in the list under the heading 'Motion Adjourned' on 19th June, 2017.
This order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the defendants that the suit is not maintainable.
(SOUMEN SEN, J.) B.Pal