E SATHISHKUMAR Vs. GENN CONTROLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard both the counsel. There are three partnership firms involved in these cases. One is M/s. Genn Controls, the partners of which are second plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3. Same business is run in the name of Genn Industrie (the fourth defendant) by defendants 1 to 3 as partners. Fourth defendant in turn created fifth defendant industry, which is run by sixth defendant, wife of second defendant. We are not very much concerned about the fifth defendant firm. The lis is about the running of fourth defendant firm.

(2.) THE second plaintiff Veluswamy claimed that he only created the fourth defendant partnership firm; for certain reasons, he could not get included in the firm as a partner and he only made defendants 1 to 3 as partners of the Genn Industries. Though the firm was started in the name of the fourth defendant, it is the plaintiffs according to whom are responsible for the entire business of the fourth defendant.

(3.) AS aforesaid, the business is common for first plaintiff and fourth defendant firm. Defendants 1 to 3, who are partners in fourth defendant cannot run the same business detrimental to first plaintiff firm in which also they are equal partners.