SURESH NAND Vs. RAJIV CHOUDHRIE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This in an application under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for initiating proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act against the respondents. The petitioner Suresh Nanda, his sister-in-law Mrs. Mona Nanda, Rajiv Choudhrie, Sudhir Choudhrie and Mrs. Amrit Choudhrie were partners of the firm M/s. Eureka Sales Corporation.

(2.) . On 26th May 77, Rajiv Choudhrie, Sudhir Choudhrie & Mrs. Amrit Choudhrie filed a suit (suit No. 450. of 1977) against Suresh Nanda and Mrs. Mona Nanda for a declaration that the defendants retired from the partnership with effect from 17th May 1977 and are, therefore, no longer its partners. The allegation made was that the respondents had, after accepting Rs. I 50,000.00 , retired from the partnership. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 rules 1,2 and 3 for restraining the defendants from interfering with the working of the partnership. The said application came up for consideration before Pritam Singh Safeer. J. on 4th August 1977 and His Lordship allowed the application on the conditions. Firstly that the plaintiffs shall furnish statements of accounts of the partnership after every period of 3 months during the pendency of the suit, and secondly that the petitioner and his sister-in law shall be given notice, by registered post, of each meeting held by the plaintiffs and the petitioner and his sister-in-law shall be entitled to attend the meeting but they shall have no right to participate in the meeting. The above order was further clarified on 25th October 1977 that the plaintiffs shall submit the statement of accounts for the period 26th May 1977 (date of the institution of the suit) to 26th August 1977 by 23rd November 1977 and thereafter they shall keep on submitting the statement of accounts for subsequent periods of 3 months.

(3.) . No statement of accounts was filed by the plaintiffs by 23rd November 1977. However, a statement of accounts was filed on 5th December 1977 which according to the counsel for the petitioner is not a statement of accounts, thereafter no statement of accounts was filed by the plaintiffs. Mr. Kumar contends that the petitioner and his sister-in-law were given no notice of the meetings, on the other hand Mr. Gupta, counsel for the respondents/contemners contends that in fact no meeting was held after the order dated 4th August 1977.