JAYANTILAL DHIRAJLAL MEHTA Vs. GAUTAM RAMANLAL DIVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE under Rules 147 and 148 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (O.S.) Rules, 1980 is granted to the Plaintiffs to take out the Notice of Motion in terms of the draft Notice of Motion handed in. Notice of Motion made returnable on 25th October, 1999. Defendants waive service of Notice of Motion.

(2.) DEFENDANT No.1 issuing letters/notices dated 22nd June, 1999 and 28th June, 1999 has prompted the plaintiffs to file the present suit. By letter dated 22nd June, 1999, defendant No.1 has informed the Plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 to 5, hereinafter referred to as "the other partners" that the solicitors of Defendant No.1 had sent a draft deed of partnership which has not been accepted by the other partners. Defendant No.1 further stated that several events had transpired as a result of which defendant No.1 has lost all confidence in the other partners. The letter further states that on 18th June, 1999, two of the partners viz. plaintiff No.2 and Defendant No.2 had been informed that it will not be possible to continue the partnership. They were informed that either all the six "other partners" retire from the firm or defendant No.1 would exercise his right to determine the partnership. They were directed to communicate their decision by 25th June, 1999. By letter dated 28th June, 1999 , defendant No.1 wrote to the other partners and stated in exercise of his right under clause 20(a) of the Deed of Partnership dated 16th July, 1998 , notice is being given effective from 31st August, 1999 that the partnership between defendant No.1 and the other partners shall stand determined. A number of prayers have been made in the suit. The other partners seek a declaration to the effect that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant Nos.2 to 6 are partners of the firm M/s.Chandabhoy & Jassoobhoy with effect from 1-4-1999. The terms of 1998 deed, attached as Exhibit-D to the plaint, alone are not valid or binding on the parties with effect from 1-4-1999. The first defendant is not entitled to any rights, power or authority under the 1998 deed alone and particularly under clauses 19(a), (b), 20(a)(b) and 26(i), (ii) .Further declaration is sought that the two letters dated 22nd June, 1999 and 28th June, 1999 be declared to be illegal, null and void. A decree is sought against the Defendants for specific performance of the contract of partnership comprising the revised terms set out in paragraph 18 of the plaint and a formal deed of partnership be prepared under the orders and directions of this Court. Notice of Motion has been taken out for orders of injunction restraining Defendant No.1 from acting upon or claimings or asserting or exercising any rights under the 1998 Deed (Exhibit-D to the plaint) alone and in particular under the clauses mentioned above. A further injunction is sought restraining defendants No.1 and 6 from acting upon or in pursuance of or taking any steps or actions or corresponding or communicating with any one on the basis of the letters dated 22nd June and 28th June, 1999, particularly restraining the defendants 1 and 6 from in any manner communicating or intimating to any parties or clients of the said firm or any one else whomsoever that the said firm has been determined or will stand determined with effect from 31st August, 1999. A further injunction is sought against the first and 6th defendants from in any manner directly or indirectly interfering with and/or obstructing or preventing the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 to 5 from functioning or carrying on their profession as partners of the said firm.

(3.) I have considered the matter from all angles. At this ad-interim stage it is necessary to state only the very basic facts and issues. There is no denial of the fact that defendant Nos.1 and 2 and defendant Nos. 2 to