RAJKUMAR THAWRANI Vs. RAJESH THAWRANI & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of both the parties these appeals finally decided at admission stage.

(2.) Since both these appeals arise out of the orders dated 25/03/2015 and 23/05/2015 relating to the same subject matter, they are being decided by this common order.

(3.) The facts giving rise to S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1015/2015 in brief are that applicant-respondent No.1 had filed an application u/S.9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act of 1996') in the Court of Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan stating therein that the respondents are the sons of late Shri Bhagwan Das Thawrani, who was running a proprietorship firm in the name and style of M/s. Rajkumar Vishandas in Shop No.28-29, Maharani Gayatri Devi Market, Atish Market, Jaipur. The appellant, who is real brother of late Shri Bhagwan Das Thawrani was made a partner in the firm on 01/04/2011. As per the partnership-deed, late Shri Bhagwan Das Thawrani had 5% share, while appellant had 35% share and the respondents were having 30% shares each in the profit and loss of the firm. After the demise of Shri Bhagwan Das Thawrani on 12/08/2013, his 5% share was got devolved on his legal heirs as per the partnership-deed and accordingly, devolved jointly on both the respondents, thereby, raising their respective share to 32.05%. While inducting the appellant as partner, late Shri Bhagwan Das Thawrani invested Rs.26 lacs as capital of the firm in the name of the appellant but after his death, now the same legally belongs to the respondents alone. The appellant had merely given an unsecured loan of Rs.10,736.48 to the firm and except this, no other amount was invested by the appellant in the firm. The appellant is continuously acting contrary to the interest of the firm and has been making efforts to wrongly include his son Mr. Gaurav Thawrani in the business of the firm and by taking away customer of the firm, he is gaining undue profit by conducting business similar nature to that of the firm. The appellant has been pocketing the firm's money thereby, conducting wrongful and illegal acts and he has also consistently threatening the respondents. As per clause 17 of the partnership-deed, all disputes are to be got adjudicated by an arbitrator, however, since appointment of the arbitrator will take time, therefore, the property, stock and daily transactions of the firm need to be protected. Therefore, Shri Krishna Kumar Khandelwal may be appointed as a Receiver over the property of the firm.