SATISH KUMAR MEHTA Vs. SUMAN KUMAR MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Unsuccessful plaintiff Shri Satish Kumar Mehta has filed the present regular second appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 24th August, 1999 passed by the Court of the learned District Judge, Amritsar who affirmed the judgment and decree passed by Shri Kuldip Singh, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, who dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Shri Satish Kumar Mehta son of Shri Tarlochan Dass Mehta filed a suit for permanent injunction against his real brother Shri Suman Kumar Mehta alleging that he is the sole proprietor of Messrs Mehta Textiles and Finishing Mills, Hide Market, Amritsar. The respondent is also carrying on his business under the name and style of Messrs New Mehta Textile Mills opposite Murgi Khana, Batala Road, Amritsar. The appellant and the respondent are real brothers. It is alleged by the appellant that after the death of their father, a dispute arose in between and it was mutually agreed that the appellant will be sole proprietor of Messrs Mehta Textiles and Finishing Mills carrying on its business at Hide Market, Amritsar, while the respondent will be the owner of the firm Messrs New Mehta Textile Mills, Opposite Murgi Khana, Batala Road, Amritsar. After this agreement between the parties, the respondent wrote to the Factories Inspector claiming that he had no concern with Messrs Mehta Textile and Finishing Mills. He also addressed letters to the Labour and Reconciliation Officer, Amritsar and Labour Inspector Grade-I, Amritsar and the Manager, E.S.I. Amritsar that he had no concern with this firm. The case set up by the appellant is that he had been depositing the amount and dues in the various authorities claiming himself as a Proprietor of the firm Messrs Mehta Textile Mills, Amritsar. The respondent is a strong headed person. He wanted to show force and threats to interfere in the business of the plaintiffs firm Messrs Mehta Textiles and Finishing Mills.

(3.) Notice of the suit was given to the defendant whose stand was that he had never relinquished his interest in the partnership firm of Messrs Mehta Textile and Finishing Mills on the basis of the letter dated 18.5.1992 as alleged by the appellant and that he is still a partner; all the assets of the firm, including the machinery etc. belong to the partnership concern. Earlier there was a regular deed of partnership which was scribed on 16th November, 1989. The new partnership after the death of their father came into existence on 23rd November, 1991, in which the mother of the parties was also included as a partner. It was pleaded by the defendant that the plaintiff is violating the terms and conditions of the partnership deed dated 23rd November, 1991. The firm Messrs New Mehta Textile Mills was started by the respondent after taking loan from the bank and this loan was raised from the State Bank of Patiala on 17th September, 1992. The appellant has no right, title or interest in the new concern Messrs New Mehta Textile Mills. The machinery was installed on the land belonging to the wife of the respondent. The letter dated 18.5.1992 written by the respondent had been admitted by the appellant, but he accepts that it was only intimation to the various authorities that he was no longer the managing occupier of the said concern. The defendant also took the stand that the firm was duly registered partnership firm and the same could not come to an end as no deed of dissolution of partnership has been executed. With this broad defence the defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit.