S SIVAPALANI Vs. S MURUVAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant in O.S.No.189 of 2001 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge at Pondicherry has preferred the present appeal aggrieved against the order made in I.A.No.1238 of 2001 dated 21.6.2001.

(2.) THE case in brief is as follows: THE plaintiff filed petition underO.39, Rule 1 and Sec.151 of Civil Procedure Code to pass an interim injunction restraining the 1st defendant and his men from in any way interfering with the day-to-day routine works connected with the control and management of the partnership business carried on under the firm name "MURUGANS" and the premises bearing door No.265, Jawaharlal Nehru Street, Pondicherry till the disposal of the suit. During 1978, the father / second defendant started a joint family business in textiles by name "Sarada Silk House" in partnership. During 1981, the 2nd defendant entered into partnership with the plaintiff and started another textile concern "Sarathas" in Jawaharlal Nehru Street, Pondicherry. THE business was very successful and lucrative because of his sincere involvement. In 1984, all the brothers were inducted into the firm "Saradhas". By doing good business, many properties were purchased in the joint names of the plaintiff and his brothers. THE 1st defendant, brother of the plaintiff was causing loss to the business. THE 2nd defendant in consultation with the auditors advised the first four sons to get separated from the parent establishment "Sarathas" and start new business. Two Memorandum of Understanding deeds, one in 1993 and another in 1994 were executed between the partners of the parent establishment. THE first four sons came out of the firm "Saradhas" and last two sons namely, Mohanasundaram and Saravanan are the partners running the parent establishment with the father. On the advice of the 2nd defendant, the plaintiff reluctantly accepted the 1st defendant as his partner and the business was started under the name "MURUGANS" on 06.3.1995. THE properties bearing door Nos.10 and 265, Jawaharlal Nehru Street were allotted to the plaintiff and the 1st defendant jointly and the property bearing door No.265 was taken as partnership property. A showroom consisting of basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor was built over the said property. THE MURUGANS showroom housed in a decorated four storeyed building with updated stock was a new kind in Pondy, different from the then existing textile shops. It became a popular and household name in and around the houses of Pondy State. THE plaintiff was necessitated to go out of station very often to make purchase of stocks. As the business required large number of persons to supervise, the 1st respondent brought in his father-in-law for assistance. THE 1st respondent also took initiative and follow up action to borrow more monies for the business and obtained overdraft facility from Nedungadu Bank.

(3.) THE plaintiff himself had admitted in the affidavit that the defendants are also in the joint possession and enjoyment of "A" schedule property dealing with the day-to-day activity of the business. He cannot claim either interim injunction or permanent injunction as against them. THE plaintiff is concentrating on grabbing the partnership money by way of converting the same into the new account. THE act of the plaintiff and his wife by creating a bogus account is not only cheating the defendants but also the Government machineries. THEy further stated that till today they are alone supervising the staff and the day-to-day affairs in "A" schedule mentioned property and never demanded the plaintiff to retire from the partnership by suggesting the plaintiff to accept payment of Rs.2 crores in full and final settlement. THE alleged banker's pay order on 2.3.1998 was the accrued income, share of the defendants for the month of September, 1997 to February, 1998 and not as alleged as the initial payment for the full settlement. No such letter dated 23.5.2000 was received by them. "A" schedule mentioned property is a partnership business and the 1st defendant is responsible for each and every profit or loss and no individual with sound mind would destroy his business or chase away customers or to destroy the building jointly constructed by him. THE 1st defendant is not having any other shop except this shop. If the defendants are restrained, the plaintiff would put the concern in heavy loss which cannot be compensated in any manner and the 1st defendant also would be responsible for third parties. THE suit reliefs and the pleadings are contradictory and not maintainable. A person cannot be injected from his working place when he is a partner. THEre is no pre-suit notice prior to the filing of the suit. THE suit as well as the applications were filed with a sole reason to give mental torture to the defendants and to divert the criminal cases against him. THE allotment of cashier seat to the plaintiff's wife only in the category of the staff of the concern and not in the category of the partner's wife, she can be removed from that seat at any time considering the welfare of the firm and there may not be any order of injunction for keeping her in the seat.