Calcutta High Court
Shree Krishan Bagla vs Shravan Kumar Bagla & Ors on 5 December, 2008
Author: Indira Banerjee
Bench: Indira Banerjee
AP No. 362 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
SHREE KRISHAN BAGLA Plaintiff/Petitioner/Applicant
Versus
SHRAVAN KUMAR BAGLA & ORS. Defendant/Respondent
For Plaintiff/Petitioner :
For Defendant/Respondent :
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE Date : 5th December, 2008.
The Court :- No one has appeared to oppose this application. In spite of directions, no Affidavit-in- Opposition has been filed. The time to file Affidavit-in- Opposition was extended thrice.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the members of the Bagla family started a partnership firm, M/s. Bagla & Company. The said partnership firm carried on business inter alia of brokerage and of dealing in shares.
The partnership firm was, from time to time, reconstituted and ultimately comprised of two partners, namely, the petitioner and his son, that is, the respondent.
Disputes arose between the petitioner and his son, that is, the respondent as a result whereof the petitioner gave notice of 2 dissolution of the partnership firm, invoked the arbitration clause in the partnership agreement and appointed Mr. Pradip Sancheti, Advocate as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute. The respondent did not, however, concur in the appointment of Mr. Sancheti.
In the circumstances, an application has been made under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of an arbitrator, which is pending.
An application being A.P. No. 236 of 2005 was also filed in this Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the 1996 Act, in which diverse orders have, from time to time, been passed.
In the said proceedings, a Receiver was appointed to make an inventory of books of accounts, ledgers, registers and other records and documents of the partnership firm and to have the accounts of the partnership firm prepared and audited.
It is alleged that the petitioner has recently come to know that proceedings initiated by Bank of Rajasthan against the partnership firm in the Debt Recovery Tribunal have been decreed ex parte against the partnership firm. The Debt Recovery Tribunal has passed a decree for Rs.1,84,179.22 with interest thereon at 20.4% at quarterly rests from 23rd March, 1998. According to the petitioner, proceedings were not contested by the respondent No.1. 3
The petitioner claims that the respondent No.1 has stopped taking interest in litigation involving the partnership firm and has allowed a certificate to be issued ex parte. The respondent No.1 has not taken any steps to replace M/s. Dube & Co. with another Advocate.
It is submitted that the petitioner wrote to the Advocates, M/s. Dube & Co. seeking change. M/s. Dube & Co., it is alleged, have refused to give change, on the ground that the Vakalatnama in their favour had been executed by the respondent No.1 as partner, but change was being sought by a representative who was not even a partner of the firm. The petitioner contends that the petitioner cannot describe himself as partner in view of the notice of dissolution.
From the averments in the petition, which are uncontroverted since no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed despite directions, it appears that the litigations in which the partnership firm is involved, are not properly being conducted, by reason of the partnership disputes and/or the notice of dissolution of partnership.
In the aforesaid circumstances, it is just expedient and proper that a Special Officer be appointed to represent the partnership firm in pending litigations.
Mr. Rudrajit Sarkar, Advocate is appointed Special Officer to represent the partnership in all pending litigations. 4 It will be open to Mr. Rudrajit Sarkar to obtain a change from M/s. Dube & Co. should the Special Officer deem it necessary and/or expedient to do so. It will obviously be open to the Special Officer to appoint a new advocate and/or advocates.
The learned Special Officer shall be entitled to monthly remuneration of 100 Gms. to be paid by the petitioner.
The application is disposed of.
All parties and the learned Special Officer shall act on a xerox signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings.
(INDIRA BANERJEE, J.) sksr.