JAIN MOTOR CAR COMPANY Vs. DEEPTI JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE this order I shall dispose of OMP No. 324/2007 filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Act) and IA No. 12934/2007 filed by the respondent being counter interim reliefs against each other based on the common facts of the case. The undisputed facts of this case are that petitioners No. 2 to 6 and the respondent are the partners of the registered partnership firm namely M/s Jain Motor Car Company (petitioner No. 1). Petitioner No. 1 firm owns a petrol pump at Guru Gobind Singh Marg, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi -110005 which is the retail outlet of M/s IBP Co. Ltd. selling petrol, diesel and lubricants etc. on the terms and conditions mentioned in the licence deed dated 12.7.1989. Petitioner No. 1 firm has opened current accounts with Canara Bank, P.S. Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and with State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi in the name of petitioner No. 1 firm and its branches, namely. Bhiku Ram Jain Exports and JMC Industries respectively.

(2.) ALL the above mentioned partners of petitioner No. 1 firm are related to each other. Respondent, wife of Sh. Virender Jain was taken as a partner in the partnership firm in 1983. A partnership deed dated 1.7.1983 was executed between the partners of the said partnership firm. As per clause 7 of the said partnership deed, petitioners No. 2 to 6 have 90% share, whereas, respondent has 10% share in the profit and loss of the firm. Under the terms of the licence deed petitioner No. 1 has to make a daily advance payment of Rs. 7 -8 lacs through cheques for purchasing petroleum products, namely petrol, diesel, lubricants etc. It is on the basis of the receipt of said cheques that M/s IBP Co. Ltd. delivers the petroleum products to the firm. The cheques issued to M/s. IBP Co. Ltd. are to be encashed on presentation failing which petitioner No. 1 firm would face closure of the petrol pump for violation of the terms and conditions of the licence.

(3.) THE respondent wrote a letter to the above mentioned bankers stating that she should be recognized as one of the signatories in the said operations of the bank account and from 11.6.2007 no cheque in which she is not a signatory be approved or passed for payment. On 4.6.2007, the respondent wrote a letter to the Canara Bank inter alia requiring them not to clear the cheques issued by the partnership firm without her signatures. Respondent also wrote a letter to the petitioners indicating her desire to become a signatory to the cheques and calling upon the petitioners not to make any cash payments but to make only cheque payments.