SUBODH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. SHRIKANT GUPTA.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the original plaintiff. He filed a suit in the Court of the learned Senior Judge, Chandigarh, for dissolution of the firm carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Rajaram and Brothers of which he claimed to be a partner alongwith his father, brothers and one K.K. Jindal. Each partner had 20% share in the profits and losses of the firm and the partnership was one at will. The head office of the firm was situate at Bombay where it was registered with the Registrar of Firms. Its factory was situate at Mandsaur where the father Rajaram Gupta lived with his sons and attended to the partnership business. The plaintiff also was residing at Mandsaur till 1974 when he shifted to Chandigarh. After he shifted to Chandigarh he visited Mandsa ur of and on in connection with the business of the firm. His case is that after he shifted to Chandigarh he used to call for and receive statements of accounts of the business carried on at Mandsaur and he also received and booked orders for the firm at Chandigarh which he forwarded to Mandsaur for exaction. According to him, the branch office of the firm was at Chandigarh as is evident from the stationery of the firm.

(2.) ACCORDING to him, his father shifted from Mandasaur to Rajanandgaon sometime in the year 1980 and thereafter his brothers Shrikant Gupta and Suryakant Gupta were virtually in charge of the business at Mandsaur. Certain disputes arose as regards the management of the partnership business and consequently the correctness of the accounts maintained by Shrikant Gupta and Suryakant Gupta at Mandsaur became suspect. The plaintiff further contended that he had sent his representative to Mandsaur to check the accounts but his two brothers did not permit him to do so. He also personally went to Mandsaur and it appears from the averment in the plaint that his brothers were not cooperative and in fact some criminal complaints came to be lodged in regard to certain incidents which happened at Mandsaur while he was there. In the end the father Rajaram Gupta went to Mandsaur and later a meeting took place at Bhilai on 26th November, 1992. At the said meeting as agreement was drawn up for the dissolution of the partnership firm and for distribution of its assets amongst the partners. It was mentioned in the agreement that it will ensure for one month meaning thereby that the accounts of the partnership would be settled within that time. The plaintiff now contends that the said agreement is void since material facts were supported by his two brothers and in any case the accounts were not settled within the period of one month. He also contends that certain assets owned by the firm were not included in the agreement and that also rendered the agreement void and unenforceable in law. He, therefore, contended that the agreement had to be ignored and the firm was required to be dissolved and accounts to be settled by the appointment of a Commissioner. He also claimed certain other incidental reliefs.

(3.) ON this line of reasoning, the learned Judge in the High Court set aside the order of the Trial Court and directed that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for representation in a competent Court. It is this order of the learned Single Judge which is assailed before us.