SARITA LAMBA Vs. SATISH JASSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. This petition seeks an order restraining the respondents or their agents from alienating, transferring or parting with possession of the premises in question said to be constructed upon plots bearing Nos. 700-A & 701-A, Village Lado Sarai, New Delhi. It further seeks an appointment of a Receiver for the said property and seeks the deposit of the rent paid to the respondents for the said premises in this Court.

(2.) The petitioner submits as under: Respondent No. 1, Satish Jassal and respondent No. 2, Nagender Singh were acquainted with the petitioner through her husband as being builders and consequently a partnership firm constituting the petitioner and the two respondents was formed. The partnership inter- alia provided that properties shall be purchased from the funds provided by the parties towards their capital and the properties purchased shall be developed and redeveloped and dealt with thereafter so as to accrue profits for the partnership firm and its partners. Accordingly property Nos. 700-A & 701-A measuring 242 sq. yds. was purchased in Village Lado; Sarai, New Delhi and the petitioner paid the entire consideration of Rs. 5.00 lacs to the seller Smt. Saroj Dev for property No. 701 -A. This property was purchased for the partnership firm which was to be named 'National Construction Company'. However, the partnership at that time was yet to be formed and consequently the properties were to be purchased in individual names and thereafter were to be part of the assets of the firm. On 27th March, 1996, the petitioner executed the written Deed of Partnership under the name and style of National Construction Company for sale, purchase, renting construction and development of residential, commercial and agricultural properties. The petitioner has relied upon Clause 5 of the said Partnership Deed to contend that petitioner had given financial assistance in the purchase of the property and was also to contribute towards the redevelopment. The partnership firm was subsequently registered on 18th November, 1998.

(3.) The petitioner's case further is that the amount of Rs.5.00 lacs was paid to Saroj Devi from her initial investment. This was also reflected in the income-tax returns of the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that even though the properties in question were purchased prior to the Deed of Partnership dated 27th March, 1996, the properties No.700-A & 701-A were purchased for the partnership by the petitioner and the respondents. Clause 13 of the Deed of Partnership has been relied upon by the petitioner to contend that no party shall without the written consent of the other, assign and mortgage his share and interest in the partnership or dispose of by loan, pledge, sale or otherwise any part of the partnership properties or assets. According to the petitioner the respondents developed the property and constructed basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor and the third floor in the said premises. A bank account was -opened in the name of National Construction Company recording the petitioner and the respondent as partners of the firm. In April, 2000, the petitioner came to know upon a site visit that the building on the piece of land, i.e.. property No. 700-A & 701-A was fully complete and under occupation of the parties including "Voltas Ltd." and "Carrier Refrigeration Ltd". The petitioner claims that the respondents never disclosed to the said companies that the properties were owned by the firm and the security deposit for large sums of money was taken by the respondents from the said companies. The petitioner states that when the respondents were confronted with this unauthorised alienation of the partnership assets, the respondent No.2 threatened the husband of the petitioner with life due to his muscle power in case any controversy was created. Accordingly a Notice dated 25th April, 2000 was issued by the petitioner to the respondents and even the tenant-Voltas Ltd. by its letter dated 15th May, 2000 declined to withhold rent in the absence of an order from the Court.