SMRITI JAISWAL Vs. ROMI JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against the error of the learned trial Judge dated 30th November, 1998 on an application of the appellants/defendants Nos. 2 and 3 inter alia, praying for revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of Letters Patent and for dismissal of the suit. By the said order, the learned single Judge dismissed the application of the appellants/defendants Nos. 2 and 3.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, reference to the notice in this judgment shall be made as they have been arrayed in the suit being C.S. No. 393 of 1997. The plaintiff is respondent No. 1 in the instant appeal and the defendant No. 1 is respondent No. 2 herein. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the appellants in the instant appeal.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint, briefly stated, is that in or about 1979 Krishna Lal Jaiswal (since deceased) began carrying on business in partnership with his two sons, being plaintiff and one Aswini Kumar Jaiswal under the name and style of M/s. Sujata Picture Palace at 3A, Madan Street, Calcutta. The said Krishna Lal Jaiswal died on September, 1982 and the partnership was reconstituted with plaintiff, his mother being defendant No. 1 and the said Aswini Kumar Jaiswal, as per the Partnership Deed, evidenced by an indenture dated September 15, 1982. At the time of executing the said Deed of Partnership dated 15th September, 1982, all the parties thereto resided at 4, Clive Row, Hastings, Calcutta and the Deed of Partnership was executed at 3A, Madan Street, Calcutta. The said firm is a duly registered partnership firm having its Head Office at 3A, Madan Street, Calcutta. The assets and liabilities of the firm as on 14th September, 1982 and its agreements and commitments upto that date vested in the newly constituted firm. The mother, defendant No. 1 is having 40 paise share in the rupee while the remaining two partners each having the remaining 30 paise share in the rupee. The books of accounts relating to the business of partnership was required to be regularly maintained and kept at the Head Office of the firm. The business of the firm was stated to be exhibiting and distributing cinematographic films and in similar business enterprises.