Calcutta High Court
Pushpa Singh & Ors vs Ravi Prakash Singh on 24 April, 2019
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
AP No. 670 of 2017
AP No. 268 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
PUSHPA SINGH & ORS.
Versus
RAVI PRAKASH SINGH
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
Date : 24th April, 2019.
Appearance:
Mr. Suman Dutt, Adv.
Ms. Manali Bose, Adv.
Ms. Shrayashee (Saha) Das, Adv.
Ms. Tulika Roy, Adv.
Mr. Probal Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Dipak Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Nilratan Banerjee, Adv.
The Court : Mr. Dutt, learned advocate, appears on behalf of substituted
petitioners in these arbitration petitions, for appointment and interim measure.
He submits, his clients include widow of deceased partner. The
partnership business was run by two brothers as partners, her deceased husband
being elder brother. On her husband having had fallen ill, respondent took over
the business and over a period of time used it as a base to launch his own. Hence urgency of directing interim measure before everything is depleted pending adjudication of how things can be undone.
On query from Court regarding participation in partnership business he points out, the widow by, inter alia, letter dated 22nd March, 2017 had said, 2 administration and control of the firm were taken over by respondent some time in end of June, 2015 on illness and medical condition of her husband. Respondent by letter dated 19th June, 2017 dealt with this letter. There was mention therein of several sittings with the widow on expectation of settlement of disputes, allegation that she was regularly handling the business on behalf of her husband and taking active part in the day to day transactions of said business till date (of writing). Mr. Dutt submits, the partnership shops are closed and respondent has opened another, for purpose of which he is using Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration of the partnership. He points out from the petition and supplementary affidavit filed, relevant disclosures to that effect. Mr. Dutt relies on section 53 of Partnership Act, 1932 for restraint order being made on respondent from using any property of the firm for his own benefit until affairs of the firm have been completely wound up on respondent not having had purchased goodwill of the firm.
On query from Court, Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of respondent, confirms partnership shops are closed. He submits, his client has closed them. On further query from Court regarding allegation of separate shop of respondent, he submits, that is so but partnership business is also running. On still further query from Court he confirms, on instruction, partnership business constituted two shops and four godowns, particulars of which are in the partnership deed available at pages 21 and 32 of the petition. Regarding section 53 contention of substituted petitioners Mr. Mukherjee submits, such contention puts paid to substituted petitioners' claim to be inducted as partners on reconstitution of the firm.
3
Mr. Arijit Chatterjee, advocate at 6, Old Post Office Street (3rd floor) is appointed Special Officer to forthwith proceed to lock and seal the partnership shops and godowns and the shop at 44, Armenian Street, Kolkata - 700 001, photographs of which appear at pages 246 to 248 of supplementary affidavit. Special Officer will be paid remuneration 2000 GMs at the first instance by substituted petitioners. There will be further direction restraining respondent from using the partnership's GST registration.
Respondent will be entitled to use affidavit objection to supplementary affidavit filed in the petition as well as affidavit opposition to arbitration petition for appointment, which will be accepted on returnable date on advance copy served. Petitioner will be entitled to use affidavit reply on similar direction for acceptance on advance copies served. Court expects parties to work things out so that partnership business can be resumed.
List on 13th May, 2019 under same heading.
(ARINDAM SINHA, J.) kc