ISSAC PETER Vs. ISSAC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first counter petitioner (first defendant) in I. A. 2692/1994 in O. S. 377/1994 of the 1st Addl. Sub Judge, Ernakulam is the appellant. THE respondent-plaintiff is the lather of the appellant. THE appeal is directed against the order of the court below in I. A. 2692 of 1994 in o. S. 377 of 1994 making the ad interim order of injunction absolute, restraining the appellant from raising any loan or creating any encumbrances on the assets of the firm or from cutting and removing any trees from the estate owned by the firm or committing any waste therein.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for the disposal of the C. M. A. are as follows: THE respondent-plaintiff is the lather of defendants 1 to 3 and 7. Defendants 4, 5 and 6 are the wives of defendants 1 to 3 respectively. Defendants 1 to 6 along with Smt. Mary Issac, Smt. Mariamnia Sunny, Smt. Agnes issac, Smt. Rosamma Issac, M/s. Issac Peter and Co. (P) Ltd. and M/s. Scalord hotel (P) Ltd. entered into a partnership dated 18-12-1974 in the name of pambra Coffee Plantations with its place of business at the Parabra Estate in wynad and Head Quarters at Ernakulam. THE object of the partnership is to run and maintain the coffee estate, namely, Pambra Coffee Plantations. THE firm was re-constituted on 9-9-1988 admitting the 7th defendant who was then a minor to the benefit of the partnership. As per the partnership deed the appellant-first counter petitioner-first defendant is the managing partner of the firm, the second defendant was the manager and the third defendant the Assistant Manager of the estate. While so, the partnership firm was re-constituted as per a fresh deed dated 24th July, 1990 whereby all the 7 partners agreed to admit the plaintiff as 8th party to the partnership. As per the re-constituted deed also the appellant was to continue as managing partner who was given wide powers including authority to borrow funds by hypothecating the assets of the firm. THE managing partner, no doubt, has to maintain correct books of account showing the profit and loss of the firm and the other partners are given the right of inspection of the books of account. According to the respondent-plaintiff none of these obligations have been fulfilled by the appellant and according to him the appellant has raised substantial loan from banks on the security of the assets of the firm detrimental to the prospects of the firm. THE respondent would further contend that there was no necessity to raise any loan as aforesaid since there was excellent coffee crops which would bring enormous amount as profit. According to the respondent, if the appellant is allowed to manage the affairs of the firm by raising huge sums as loan from various financial institutions and utilising the same for his personal needs the firm will get ruined under his management and under the circumstances the respondent prays for dissolution of the firm and for an ad interim injunction restraining the appellant from raising further loans on the security of the assets of the firm with the idea of utilising it for his personal needs. THE trial court initially granted an ex-parte interim injunction as prayed for.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel on both sides, we are not inclined to sustain the order under challenge in this C. M. A.