JITENDRA SINGH CHHABRA Vs. RAJEEV TANEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 151, CPC for vacation of the interim order dated 3rd September, 2004 restraining respondent, his relatives from carrying on the business of providing placement services similar to that of the partnership firm M/s. Creations E. Services. The relevant clause which now governs the relationship between the parties is to be found in the Addendum to the original contract which read as under:

(2.) It is not in dispute that the respondent evinced the intention of discontinuing the partnership on 20th August, 2004 by stating that the partnership was to be discontinued with immediate effect. Thus if clause 22 is operative though the Counsel for the petitioner contended otherwise, this period will come to end on 19th November, 2004. The learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that clause signed by the husband cannot bind the wife or the relative though the question of relative is academic in this petition as no relative is involved. The interim order as per the respondent's Counsel's plea operates against the wife also. There was no warrant in law and according to the Counsel for an order against the wife in respect of the contractual obligations of the husband.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the contract provides that the respondent's wife shall be engaged in conducting the affairs of the business of placement services and in fact the respondent's wife actually worked for the partnership business. The amounts of the profits to be shared were dependent on the fact that work for the partnership was done by her and profits were thus to be shared 50% each by the petitioner and the respondent due to the wife's work for the partnership. The learned Counsel for the applicant/respondent Ms. Meenakshi Arora contended that if there is an interim order against the wife also, there would be restraint of trade as contemplated under Section 27 of the Contract Act which reads as under: