JAGDISH PARSHAD Vs. RAM KUMAR GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the main petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants for referring their disputes to arbitrator, the plaintiffs have put up this applicatian under Sections 14 and 15 of the Partnership Act, 1932 (in short the Act) and Section 41 read with II Schedule of the Arbitration Act, for the grant of temporary injunctions. Partnership was entered into between the parties vide partnership deed dated 23rd September 1982 and which was registered with the Registrar of Firms under the provisions of the Act and wherein the defendants were partners Nos. I to 3 and the plaintiffs partners Nos. 4 to 7. The defendants contributed place of business, i.e. Shop No. C-5581, Lahori Gate, Naya Bazar. Delhi of which they were the tenants whereas the capital investment and other financial arrangements were to be made and contributed by the plaintiffs. Each of the defendants had 13 per cent share in the profits and losses whereas each of plaintiffs nos. 2 to 4, 15 per cent and plaintiff no. I, 16 per cent. Since the entire finance tor the partnership was to be arranged by the plaintiffs, it was agreed that the plaintiffs alone shall be entitled to open and operate accounts in the banks on behalf of the firm. The account of the firm was opened in the Central Bank of INdia, Naya Bazar, Delhi under the signatures of the plaintiffs and with instructions to the bank to operate the account under the signatures of the plaintiffs only. Regarding the duration of the partnership business the partnership deed provided as under :-

(2.) IT is asserted that contrary to the provision regarding the duration of the partnership business for a period of five years the defendants are not permitting the plaintiffs to carry on any business from the aforesaid premises, nor do they permit any access to the safe/cash book and to operate the bank account notwithstanding that the payments have to be made to the creditors of the firm and have in furtherance of their aforesaid nefarious design written a letter to the bank and got the operation of the aforesaid account unauthorisedly stopped which they had no right to do and which was in violation of the terms of the partnership deed. IT is further alleged that approximately a sum of Rs. 1,34,000 is lying to the credit of the partnership firm in the account of the firm maintained in the bank and all the books of account and the cash balance to the tune of about Rs 1,35.000 are also lying in the safe in the aforesaid premises of the firm. The partnership started and worked under the name and style of 'M/s. Jai Ambey Trading Co.'.

(3.) THUS, the defendants, even though the exclusive tenants of the premises in question, have no right to obstruct or exclude the plaintiffs from carrying on the business of the partnership in question in these premises and consequently the plaintiffs have a prima-facie case in their favour.