S MAHALAKSHMI Vs. M SYAMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 12th defendant in O. S. 133 of 1996 on the file of Sub Court, Trichy has filed this revision challenging the order of the lower Court in I. A. 202/96 whereby an ex parte interim Receiver was appointed.

(2.) The respondents 1 and 2 have filed the suit for dissolution of the partnership known as _Srinivasa Transport (Firm)', for rendition of accounts by the third defendant in the said suit, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 12 and 13 from alienating the buses bearing Registration Nos. TUC 9991, TDG 555 and TAY 977 and for other consequential reliefs. The plaintiffs have filed the suit contending that the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 11 are partners of the partnership firm and the partnership was entered on 1-12-92. As per the terms of the partnership deed, the third defendant is the Managing Director of the partnership firm. The third defendant in collusion with the first and second defendants, who are his father and mother, had alienated the permits and the Registration Certificate relating to the aforesaid three business belonging to the partnership firm in favour of one Sri Srinivasa Transport (Firm) in which defendants 2 and 13 are partners. The l2th defendant is the wife of the third defendant and l3th defendant is his sister-in-law. The plaintiffs came to know about the illegal transfer on 16-2-96. Since the third defendant had acted against the interest of the partnership concern, the suit for dissolution has been filed all along with the plaint I. A. 202/96 for appointment of interim Receiver was also filed.

(3.) In support of the application for appointment of Receiver, the petitioners have filed the affidavit in which the plaintiffs have stated that the third defandant had illegally transferred the permits and the plaintiffs came to know about the same only on 16-2-96. It is further stated in the affidavit that the plaintiffs understood that the third defendant has committed manipulation of accounts and has transferred the liquid assets and other assets in favour of the said Sri Srinivasa Transport (Firm) and there is gross concealment of income belonging to the partnership firm Srinivasa Transport (Firm) of which the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 11 are partners. The plaintiffs apprehend that they will be put to colossal loss, hardship and irreparable injury. The defendants 12 and 13 are attempting to alienate the aforesaid buses to other parties and if the attempts on their part materialise, the plaintiffs and other partners will be put to irreparable loss and hardship.