SITARAM KHEMKA Vs. ARTHUR CHARSLEY THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to commit Mr. Arthur Charsley Thomas for contempt of Court. Mr. Thomas was the defendant in an action for dissolution of partnership. Dissolution has been decreed and a reference has been held in which the accounts of the partnership are being considered and the assets determined. The partnership traded under the name of Golden Reef Mining Syndicate, and its operative headquarters were at Patkum in the District of Manbhum. In December 1932 Mr. Thomas and one Teluram Agarwalla started prospecting for gold and in February a March, 1933 they acquired prospecting licenses from the guardian of the minor zamindar of the Patkum estate. In December 1933 Teluram left, and a partnership was started between Thomas and the plaintiff in this suit Sitaram Khemka. Thomas was to have 2/3rd share and Sitaram 1/3rd. On 20 February 1934 prospecting licenses were renewed, and some eight months later machinery was in operation at Patkum. It is suggested that on an average 40 to 50 tons of ores were crushed daily which yielded a high percentage of gold. On 20 November 1934 an order was made by this Court in the suit appointing the Official Receiver interim receiver of the business called the "Golden Reef Mining Syndicate" and its assets and of the gold field, machinery and other accessories at Patkum and all books of account at the office of the said business at 7, Old Post Office Street, Calcutta, and at Patkum.

(2.) On 10 December 1934, there was a reference to arbitration and two members of the Bar were appointed Receivers in place of the Official Receiver. A consent petition was made in connexion with the order. The petition is said to be the petition of the plaintiff, and in para. 11 there is a statement: "The defendant consents to this petition," and it is also signed by the defendant at the conclusion under the words "I consent." Para. 6 of that petition refers to the order appointing the Official Receiver and states that: The Official Receiver had been to No. 7, Old Post Office Street, Calcutta, to take possession of all the books of account there, but the Official Receiver could not take possession of any books of account as there were no books of account at the said office.

(3.) Para. 7 states. that as negotiations for settlement were going on between the parties your petitioner did not take any further steps and did not take any steps to put the Official Receiver in possession, of the books of account and the assets, machinery and properties of the said partnership at Patkum.