A NAGAPPAN Vs. MC ADAMS CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.R.P.No.3265 of 1996 is against the judgment dated 12.11.1996 in C.M.A.No.100 of 1996 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, modifying and confirming the order dated 17.9.1996 in I.A.No. 691 of 1996 in O.S.No.499 of 1996, granting injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with the operation of the bank accounts and carrying on the business of the partnership. Though, injunction was granted as prayed for by the trial Court, the injunction was modified by the lower appellate Court to the extent that the Managing Partner should convene the meeting of the partners once in a month and submit the accounts and giving opportunity to the petitioners to move the Court for appointment of a Receiver in case they were able to establish that there was necessity for doing so.

(2.) C.R.P.No.3266 of 1966 is against the very same common order dated 12.11.1996 in C.M.A.No.101 of 1996 etc., on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, confirming the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, dated 17.9.1996 in I.A.No.693 of 1996 in O.S.No.505 of 1996, dismissing the application for appointment of a receiver to take charge of the partnership business and to sell the assets of the same.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.Mohan Parasaran, contended that the firm is a partnership at will, when serious disputes have arisen among the partners and majority of the partners decided to dissolve the firm, there is an automatic dissolution when the intention of the partners are communicated to the other partners. In this case, there is sufficient communication, therefore, the only course open is to wind up the business and sell it out. On the other hand, the learned senior counsels Mr.G. Subramaniam, and Mr.T.V. Ramanujan, respectively appearing for R. Naveneetham (6th respondent in C.R.P.Nos. 3265 of 3267 of 1996 and 5th respondent in C.R.P.No.3266 of 1966) and the other respondents, vehemently contended that only when the plaintiffs in the suit O.S.No.505 of 1996 for dissolution and accounts succeed, they can ask for appointment of a receiver. THEy also contended that as the second plaintiff is empowered to act as managing partner as per the partnership deed, the Courts below have rightly found that the other group has no right to interfere with his management of the business and their alleged removing him from his position is not valid. Hence, the grant of injunction as against the plaintiffs in O.S.No.505 of 1996 is justified. Hence, the Courts below have rightly granted injunction against them. THEy also contended that the lower appellate Court has modified the order of injunction by giving certain safeguards by directing the Managing Partner to convene the meeting of all partners once in every month and submit the accounts for their approval and also give opportunity to the aggrieved partners to move the Court for appointment of receiver in case of necessity. According to the learned Senior counsels Mr.G. Subramaniam and T.V. Ramanujan, the firm runs smoothly and is earning profit and therefore the dissolution is unwarranted in the general interest of all the partners. Inasmuch as the attempt of the other partners i.e., the plaintiff in O.S. No. 505 of 1996 is only to ruine the business, their attempt should not be encouraged by appointing a receiver as claimed by them.