MD. MOFAZZULAR RAHMAN Vs. MD. SARFARAZ ALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two applications have been taken up for analogous hearing as they are in the same suit. Old GA No. 2082 of 2019 new GA No. 1 of 2019 is an application at the behest of the plaintiffs seeking interim protection. Old GA No. 2627 of 2019 new GA No. 2 of 2019 is an application at the behest of the defendant No. 1 seeking interim protection.

(2.) Learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has submitted that, the parties to the suit were carrying on business in partnership with each other under the name and style of M/s. Serajuddin & Co. by virtue of a deed of partnership dated October 1, 2011. The partnership is into mining business. The partnership has iron ores mines situated in the district of Keonjhar in the state of Orissa. He has referred to the deed of partnership dated October 1, 2011 and submitted that, the deed of partnership permits expulsion of a partner from the partnership firm. The defendant No. 1 was acting inimical to the interest of the partnership firm. He was writing various letters to different authorities making wild, unfounded and baseless allegations against the partnership firm and the partners. Pursuant to such wild allegations, the partnership firm faced a number of proceedings from various authorities including the bankers of the partnership firm. The entire liquidity of the partnership firm got embroiled in the litigations initiated at the behest of the defendant No. 1. There has also been a shift in policy of the Central Government with regard to the iron ores mines. Therefore, the partners decided that, the partners would not be making any drawings from their respective capital account with the partnership firm. This austerity measure was put into place by the partners in the best interest of the partnership firm.

(3.) Learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has submitted that, the defendant No. 1 on the pretext of been unwell and also otherwise, did not look after the affairs of the partnership firm on a day- to-day basis. The defendant No. 1 was always at Kolkata. He never visited the mines. However, the defendant No. 1 by diverse correspondence instigated various authorities to initiate proceedings against the partnership firm and the partners. By reason of such actions of the defendant No. 1, the partnership firm and its business suffered.