JOSHY FRANCIS Vs. JAMES GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition has been filed challenging Ext.P11 order passed by the Additional District Court-IV, Thodupuzha (for short, the Commercial Appellate Court) dismissing an application to stay the operation of the interim injunction order passed by the Commercial Court, Kattappana, under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act).

(2.) The petitioners and respondents are partners of the registered partnership firm named D' Heavenly Mist, constituted by a deed of partnership dtd. 12/8/2016 and reconstituted later on 24/6/2022. Admittedly, the 1st respondent was the managing partner of the firm. The majority of the partners took a decision to remove the 1st respondent from the position of managing partner in the meeting of the partners held on 12/6/2023 and he was removed. It is alleged that the 1st respondent was so removed since his conduct was in violation of the terms of the partnership and detrimental to the interest of the partnership business. On removal of the 1st respondent from the post of managing partner of the firm, the 7th respondent assumed charge as managing partner on 13/6/2023. Respondents 1 to 4 challenged the decision taken on 12/6/2023 removing the 1st respondent from the post of managing partner of the firm before the Commercial Court by filing Ext.P4 application under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration Act. The prayer in the application was to pass an order of temporary injunction restraining the 7th respondent herein from officiating as the managing partner of the firm and restraining the respondents therein from obstructing the continuation of the 1st respondent as the managing partner. The Commercial Court, after hearing both sides, granted the injunction as prayed for as per Ext.P5 order. The petitioners and respondents 7 to 11 challenged Ext.P5 order before the Commercial Appellate Court in appeal. Ext.P8 is the copy of the appeal. Along with Ext.P8, the petitioners and respondents 7 to 11 submitted an interim application to stay the operation of Ext.P5 order. Ext.P9 is the interim application. The Commercial Appellate Court dismissed Ext.P9 as per Ext.P11 order. It is challenging the said order; the petitioners, who are respondents 2 and 7 before the Commercial Court, have approached this Court, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) I have heard Sri. K. Ramakumar, the learned Senior counsel instructed by Smt.Asalatha Varma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. P.B. Krishnan, the learned Senior Counsel instructed by Smt.Teja R., the learned counsel for respondents 7 to 11, and Sri.Jawahar Jose, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 5.