RAMESH KUMAR JAIN Vs. SANDEEP JAIN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA No. 10022/2009 under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 by Defendant Nos. 1 & 2

(2.) IN order to dispose of the captioned application it may be necessary to note certain prefatory facts which, in my view are necessary to appreciate the stand taken by the parties in the present proceedings. There are broadly two warring groups. At one end the plaintiff - Mr Ramesh Kumar Jain and his 37 years old divorced daughter Monica Jain, i.e., defendant No. 3; on the other are two disconsolate sons Sandeep Jain (defendant No. 1) and Pankaj Jain (defendant No. 2). The disputes pertain to various assets and properties which are owned by the Jain family. The plaintiff/Mr. Ramesh Kumar Jain has averred that he inherited a family business, which delved in, the manufacture, purchase and sale of chemical and chemical plants. The partners in the firm at the relevant point in time were the plaintiff - Mr. Ramesh Kumar Jain, his father Ram Kishan Jain and two sons of his brother Mohinder Jain, i.e., Ajay Jain and Sanjay Jain. The business was run under the name and style of Jainco Industry. The abovementioned persons shared their profits and losses in the following ratio:

(3.) THIS is as far as the broad facts with respect to the three partnership firms are concerned. The plaintiff has averred in paragraph 13 of the plaint that in 1992 he had purchased a SFS DDA Flat No. 61, South Park Apartment, Kalkaji, New Delhi (in short "flat No. 61") in the name of his wife Pushpa Jain. The plaintiff says that he had temporarily moved out of the said flat for the purposes of renovation in the year 2006 and, shifted into a newly purchased flat No. 127, South Park Apartment, Kalkaji, New Delhi (in short "Flat No. 127"), in the same complex. The plaintiff says that he had spent more than Rs. 20 lacs in renovating flat No. 61 which is presently forcefully occupied by Sandeep Jain (defendant No. 1). In the course of argument there has been some reference on behalf of the plaintiff that he wishes to re -occupy the flat No. 61 and for that purpose a request has been made to Sandeep Jain (defendant No. 1), who has refused to oblige.