ALPANA GUPTA Vs. SUBODH KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition No. 1240 of 2003 has been filed by Suryakant Gupta, questioning the legality and propriety of order dated 2nd January, 2001, passed by the District Judge, Rajnandgaon, in Civil Suit No. 18-A/93 (Suryakant Gupta v. Smt. Saraswati Devi Gupta and Ors.). Similarly, Writ Petition No. 1239 of 2003 has been filed by Smt. Alpana Gupta, widow of Shrikant Gupta, questioning the legality and propriety of order dated 2nd January, 2001 passed by the District Judge, Rajnandgaon, in Civil Suit No. 4-A/95 (Smt. Alpana Gupta v. Subodh Kumar Gupta). Both these writ petitions are arising out of orders dated 2nd January, 2001, passed by the District Judge, Rajnandgaon in the above mentioned two civil suits by which the learned District Judge allowed the application of Subodh Kumar Gupta, defendant in both the suits, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and directed the above mentioned petitioners/plaintiffs in the above suits to add the names of

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, some disputes arose amongst the partners of the aforesaid two partnership firms and in order to resolve the disputes, a meeting of the partners took place at Bhilai on 26-11-1992 and in that meeting an agreement (Annexure P-2) was drawn up for dissolution of partnership firms and for distribution of its assets and various businesses amongst the partners as recorded in the agreement (Annexure P-2). Alleging the said agreement dated 26-11-1992 being void since material facts were suppressed by Suryakant Gupta and Shrikant Gupta and the accounts were not settled within the period of one month as mentioned in the agreement (Annexure P-2) that certain assets owned by the firms were not included in the agreement rendering the agreement void and unenforceable in law, Subodh Kumar Gupta instituted a suit before the Court of Senior Judge, Chandigarh for dissolution and rendition of accounts of the partnership firm M/s. Rajaram and Brothers. A preliminary objection was raised by Shrikant Gupta that the Court at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to try and decide the suit. The Trial Court dismissed the application against which a revision was filed and vide order dated 08-08-1993, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana set aside the order finding that the Chandigarh Court had no territorial jurisdiction as any part of cause of action had not arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. Against the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Subodh Kumar Gupta filed S.L.P. No. 10301 of 1993 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order dated 19-08-1993 observing that "Unless this agreement is set aside there is no question of the Chandigarh Court entertaining a suit for dissolution of the partnership and rendition of accounts. The petitioner cannot wish away the agreement by merely stating that it is a void document. He cannot rest content by alleging that the document has no efficacy in law and must, therefore, be ignored."

(3.) AS per the allegations of Suryakant Gupta, Subodh Kumar Gupta started creating interference in the business and affairs of Suryakant Gupta's proprietary firm M/s. Rajaram Maize Products, Rajnandgaon. Suryakant Gupta filed a suit on 16-07-1993 for declaration and injunction with the averments that after execution of the agreement dated 26-11-1992 (Annexure P-2), the business of M/s. Rajaram Maize Products, Rajnandgaon fell into his share and thereafter, he is doing his business and during the pendency of the suit, Rajaram Gupta died on 15-01-1996 and during the life time, Rajaram Gupta on 26-10-1995 through a registered 'will' bequeathed the whole property of M/s. Rajaram Maize Products in favour of Suryakant Gupta. The suit of the petitioner (Suryakant Gupta) is that after the agreement dated 26-11-1992 and moreover after the execution of 'will' dated 26-10-1995 by Late Rajaram Gupta in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner, defendant Subodh Kumar Gupta has no right to interfere in the plaintiff's business of M/s. Rajaram Maize Products, the sole proprietary firm of plaintiff Suryakant Gupta. Defendant Subodh Kumar Gupta is creating interference in the business of the plaintiff's firm and he is threatening and creating hindrance in the business of the plaintiff's firm. He is not allowing the employees of the plaintiff to work peacefully and he is bent upon to create disturbance in the business of the plaintiff. Ultimately, plaintiff Suryakant Gupta sought a declaration that the firm, M/s. Rajaram Maize Products, is the sole proprietary firm of the plaintiff and defendant Subodh Kumar Gupta has no right to create any interference in the business and affairs of that firm therefore, he be restrained by a permanent injunction not to create any interference in the affairs and business of the said firm.