PUNAM LAROIA Vs. SANJEEV LAROIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" only) and the defendants' application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code. It will also dispose of the defendants' application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code for the rejection of the plaint. These applications are being taken up together as these are connected and similar contentions have been raised therein.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of the aforesaid three application, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff, who is the wife of defendant No.1, has filed a suit for rendition of accounts, partition and injunction alleging that she and her husband defendant No.1 are business partners also. The defendant No.2 is a Company, which is under the control of defendant No.1. The plaintiff alleges that before marriage she was employed in a Bank and had a highly lucrative career ahead. Financially she was much better placed than defendant No.1. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 got married in 1991 and with her help, the defendant No.1 was in a position to develop personal contacts with corporate houses and was able to acquire a stock of 15% in M/s.Virtual Studios Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiff, who was working in Citibank, was inducted as a Director of defendant No.2 as other partners of defendant No.1 had left him on account of heavy losses. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 started pursuading the plaintiff to give up her job and help him in his business. Accordingly, in April, 2001, the plaintiff joined the defendant No.1, her husband in his business. The plaintiff requested defendant No.1 to draw up a formal document defining her legal position and status in the Company but the defendant No.1 kept putting her off on one pretext or the other. He started fighting with her and asked her to have trust in him as he was her husband. However, for all practical purposes, the plaintiff was an equal partner in the business of defendant No.1 and she had unlimited cheque signing authority.

(3.) The plaintiff, with her own efforts, had launched a new Undertaking in March, 2001 called "Team Faraway" which was a unit of defendant No.2 with its office at 502 & 504, Savitri Cinema Complex, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi. They were in tourism business. The plaintiff alleged that their business started picking up and she always trusted her husband but whenever she asked for formalizing their business relationship, the defendant No.1 would fight with her. According to her, the defendant No.1 started enjoying the life and the plaintiff, in spite of establishing a successful business had no control over its finances. The plaintiff suffered a loss also as she was unable to redeem her 625 Citigroup shares while leaving the Bank which she could redeem had she stayed in Citibank for one more year. At the time of her resignation, she had taken a loan of Rs.12 lacs from ICICI Bank to re-pay Rs.9 lacs to Citibank against a flat owned by her in Gurgaon. The balance of Rs.3 lacs was given by her to Travel Syndicate for utilization in her business. The plaintiff as Director of defendant No.2, was getting a salary of Rs.35,000/- per month out of which a sum of Rs.33,000/- per month was paid by her as installment for the ICICI loan. Therefore, she was hardly left with any money for her personal expenses. According to her, she was left with no capacity to either save money or invest in any assets whereas at Citibank, she had managed to invest in a flat at Gurgaon. The defendant No.1 compelled her to sell the aforesaid property and put a portion of money into his business. She put about 6 lacs in his business to buy out the erstwhile partners of defendant No.1.