THAVASAMUTHU NADAR Vs. BALAGURUSWAMY NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In my judgment, the injunction applied for ought to have been granted as prayed and must be granted pending the appeal. The principle is a principle of general application that, where a business of any kind is being wound up by the Court or otherwise, the business being the property of more than one person carried on as partners, co-owners, members of a joint family, or, otherwise during the winding up persons who were the members of the concern are not allowed to enter into a competition so as to interfere with the successful winding up of the concern.

(2.) That is the principle of the English law to be found enunciated in Clegg V/s. Fishwick (1849) 1 Mac. & G. 294, and the leading case of Fox Mackreth, Pitt V/s. Macherth (1789-91) 2 Cox. 158 and it is fully discussed in Lindley on Partnership, p. 370, and is recognised in Secs.88 and 90 of the Indian Trusts Act. In this case the joint family owned, among other things, a very large Abkari business and, as part of that business, the family had for many years had what he described as the Abkari monopoly in Travancore and Cochin.

(3.) The joint family became divided in status and a partition suit was brought, and Messrs. Fraser and Ross were appointed Receivers for getting in all the assets of the family and the winding up of the family affairs. In the course of the winding up, they thought fit as being in the interest of the family to apply for a renewal of the Abkari contract with the Travancore and Cochin States.