PREM PARKASH KAPOOR Vs. GOBIND RAM KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 are real brothers. Defendant No. 1 is their father. Defendant No. 6 is the plaintiffs brothers son and the grand son of defendant No 1. By an agreement dated May 1, 1969 the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 entered into a partnership for carrying on business in the sale" and manufacture of various categories of cloth, woollemn and silken, under the name and style of M/s kapoor & Co , Srinagar. with its head office at Srinagar. The profit and loss was to be shared in the proportion entered in the deed. Defendant No. 6, who was then a minor, was also admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The partnership business actually commenced from April 1, 1969. The relevant provisions of the deed are these: -

(2.) BASING his claim on the aforesaid partnership deed the plaintiff has instituted this suit on 28 -9 -1974 against the defendants for declaration that he is a partner of the firm and for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his right to participate in the partnership business as also for rendition of accounts; past, present and future. The plaintiffs case is that his capital investment in the firm was Rs. 25,000/ - which he paid by cheques and later on invested further sums on different occasions either by cash or cheques which raised his capital investment to more than Rs. 50,000/ - and when added by the profit, that has accrued to him during the last five years, his investment in the firm amounts to more than rupees two lacs. His further case to that he is entitled to participate in the affairs of the firm as also to know the details of business accounts, stocks and other things connected therewith but, says he, he could not exercise this right as a private trip carried him outside the State and when he returned, the defendants refused him access to the accounts and did not also allow him to participate in the management of the business and when he issued notices to them to concede this right of him, he was told to his surprise on August 13, 1973, by letter addressed to him by defendant No. 4, that he had ceased to be a partner from April 1, 1973. He adds that he approached his father, defendant No. 1 for an amicable settlement who agreed to refer the matter to arbitration and infact executed an arbitration agreement designating Shri Maqsood Ali and Piarey Lal Handoo as arbitrators, but the arbitration agreement was never acted upon and was also invalid as other defendants did not join it.

(3.) ALONGWITH the suit he made an application for the appointment of an ad -interim receiver as also for the preparation of the inventory of the partnership assets. On this application two commissioners were appointed to make inventories of the articles found in the shop, godown and factory premises of the firm. The order was made ex -parte. The defendants have since made an application for recalling that order and also opposed the prayer for appointment of ad -interim receiver. At the hearing counsel for the defendants, however, reserved his right to press for the recall of the order at some future date and simply opposed the request for the appointment of receiver. In the meantime, on the application of the plaintiff, it was ordered by this court on December 16, 1974 that the counsel for the parties will jointly sign the Account books maintained by the firm.