SURESH KUMAR SANGHI Vs. AMRIT KUMAR SANGHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 are carrying OB the business of motor- vehicles, jeeps and accessories etc. in partnership under the name and style of M/s. Sanghi Motors (defendant No. 7) under a deed of partnership dated 1st Jan., 1971. The plaintiff Shri Suresh Kumar Sanghi and defendants 5 and 6 S/Shri Satish Chander Sanghi and Sharad Kumar Sanghi are leal brothers. S/Shri Amrit Kurnai Sanghi, Rattan Kumar Sanghi aid Mahendia Kumal Sanghi defendants 1 to 3 are also real brothers and are first cousins of the plaintiff. Shri Ashok Kumar Sanghi defendant No. 4 is a nephew of the plaintiff and other defendants, being son of Shri Naiendia Kumar Sanghi, who is their cousin brother. The plaintiff and defendants 5 and 6 have 50% share in the partnership business while defendants 1 to 4 own the remaining 50% share. As at present, they have got a franchise/ dealership of M/s. Mahindra aad Mahindra Ltd., Bombay for the distribution and sale of jeeps and F. C. trucks for the areas of Union Tetritory of Delhi, Chandigarh, Haryafla and Punjab with Head Office at Delhi. The plaintiff was appointed as a Managing Partner by all the partners of the aforesaid firm and he has been managing and looking after the affairs of the firm as such since its inception. It may be pertinent to add here that the said firm had been in existence as a partnership concern even earlier since 1962 and various partnership deeds between different members of the Sanghi Family (as I would like to describe them collectively) were executed from time to time. Thus, it would appear that the present firm was only reconstituted in the year 1971.

(2.) Some differences and disputes having arisen between the parties, the group led by Shri Amrit Kumar Sanghi-defendant No. 1 (called Amrit Group for the sake of convenience) wrote a letter to their principals M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. on 30th August, 1979 requesting them to suspend supplies of motor-vehicles and parts to the partnership firm till the disputes and differences between them and the other group led by Shri Sureah Kumar Singhi (called Suresh Group for the sake of convenience) were sorted out. He, inter alia, stated that on account of serious lapses on the part of the plaintiff it had become impossible to conduct the business of the firm and with great reluctance they were compelled to close the working of the dealership operations till the matters were sorted out. The Amrit Group also addressed a letter to the Bank of Rajasthan Limited who were bankers to the partnership firm on 28th Aug., 1979, not to honour any cheque issued by any partners in the firm's account until further intimation from them. They further requested that the authority to operate the account by any of the partners jointly or severally be suspended. At about the same time, the plaintiff instituted a suit, being Suit No. 1034 A/79, in this Court. However, some kind of settlement (termed "package deal" by the defendants) took place between the parties on 21st Sept., 1979 and the partnership business was resumed and carried on smoothly for sometime thereafter.

(3.) The plaintiff has now instituted this suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4 from writing any letter or sending any communication to the Bank of Rajasthan for getting the bank operation of the partnership accounts with the said Bank closed or suspended and also from writing any letter or sending any communication to M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. for the purpose of getting the dealership terminated or supplies of jeeps and F. C. trucks stopped/ suspended to the partnership film. He has further prayed that the defendants be restrained from acting in any manner which may be prejudicial or adversely affect the interest of the partnership business. It is contended that Amrit Group has again started putting obstructions in the smooth working of the partnership firm with the sole motive/intention to get the dealership rights of M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited which is a coveted franchise/dealership terminated and the partnership business closed so that they can manipulate 01 manoeuvre thereafter grant of the aforesaid franchise/ dealership rights to themselves to the exclusion of the plaintiff. He has averred that the partnership firm had been granted cash credit facility to the tune of Rs. 18,00,000.00 (rupees eighteen lakhs) by their bankers but on account of increase in the prices of vehicles by the principals, he sought the limit to be raised to Rs. 21,00,000.00 (rupees twenty- one lakhs) for smooth working of the partnership business and he requested the Amrit Group to sign the relevant documents comprising, inter alia, the pronotes, letter of hypothecation which were required by the Banker. However, without assigning any reason whatsoever they have refused to do so and they even threatened that they would stop the bank operation altogether by intimating the Bank accordingly. Similarly, they threatened to write letter to their principals M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited with a request to terminate the dealership of the partnership firm for the supply and distribution of jeeps and F. C. trucks manufactured by them. It is urged that the aforesaid acts and threats of defendants 1 to 4 are violative of mutual good faith of the partners and are highly prejudicial and detrimental to the partnership business. It is pointed out that it is contractual as well as statutory obligation of the partners to observe good faith and to act in furtherance and advancement of the interest and the business of the partnership firm and not to jeopardise the same in any manner whatsoever. This conduct OB the part of the defendants has been characterised as malicious and wilful.