Kartar Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs Auto Tension Limited
1997 Latest Caselaw 361 Del

JUDGMENT

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

(1) The plaintiff has filed the suit for dissolution of the partnership and rendition of accounts of the firm M/s Punjab Manufacturing Corporation. The first defendant had two sons, namely, Balwant Singh Chandiram and Suresh Chandiram. The plaintiff Mr. Dhruv Chandiram, is the son of Balwant Singh Chandiram. The second defendant Suresh Chandiram is the son of first defendant. The 4th defendant is the widow of Balwant Singh Chandiram. The marriage between Balwant Singh Chandiram and Mrs. Neera Chandiram (4th defendant) was the dispute by defendants 1 to 3. On 07.06.1984 Mr. Balwant Singh Chandiram was expired.

(2) It is the case of the plaintiff that he attained majority on 06.07.1995. Till that date the plaintiff was being paid a sum of Rs. 2000.00 by crossed cheque and a telephone was provided and rent of the premises where the plaintiff and the 4th defendant is living was being paid by the first defendant out of the profit of the partnership firm.

(3) When in the year 1995 the payment was stopped and the telephone was disconnected, the plaintiff demanded the restoration of the same. In August 1995, the first defendant wrote to the plaintiff by a letter dated 11.08.1995 that the plaintiff was taken into the partnership for sharing the benefits and those benefits have been withdrawn with effect from 01.04.1995.

(4) The plaintiff had, therefore, filed the above suit for dissolution of the partnership. The important facts to be taken into account are as follows: The father of the plaintiff Mr. Balwant Singh had 35% shares in the partnership and after the death of Balwant Singh the plaintiff was taken a partner for sharing the benefits of partnership as a minor to the extent of 30%. I do not want to refer to the reconstruction of the partnership by the defendants. Mr. Kaura, learned Senior Counsel for defendants 1 to 3 submitted that the plaintiff is not a legitimate son of Balwant Singh and therefore, the suit is not competent. The second point is that the partnership had been reconstructed and the plaintiff ceased to be a partner. Mr. Makhija, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted that the question of legitimacy of the plaintiff has been raised now for the purpose of this case and it is clearly after-thought and a perusal of the documents would show that the plaintiff would be entitled to his share in the partnership and he would be entitled to 35% shares which was held by his father Balwant Singh.

(5) It is well settled in partnership law that once a partner seeks dissolution of the partnership, the other partners have to dissolve the firm and accounts and other assets of the partnership have to be settled amongst the partners. The stand taken by the defendants 1 to 3 that the plaintiff is not the legitimate son of Balwant Singh prima facie appears to be after-thought and it has to be decided only at the time of trial of the case. But on that score the plaintiff cannot be deprived of his rights in the assets of the partnership. In view of the fact that the partnership is doing the business, I do not think it necessary to appoint a Receiver but at once the defendants cannot deprive the plaintiff of his share in the partnership.

(6) Therefore, as an interim measure having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, direct defendants 1 to 3 to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 3500.00 every month on his account and also pay the rent for the premises not exceeding Rs. 2500.00 per month and direct the defendants 1 to 3 to restore the telephone connection No. 3016818 to the plaintiff within two weeks from today. If the defendants 1 to 3 fail to comply with this order it shall be open to the plaintiff to seek an appointment of a Receiver with reference to the partnership business in the assets.

(7) Accordingly, IAs 8619/95 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 is allowed to the above extent. Ia No. 8620/95 filed by the plaintiff under Order 40 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for appointment of the receiver is dismissed. Ia No. 11769/95 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 for restraining defendants 1 to 3 from taking possession or seizing of the Car No. Did 1361 Maruti Van is allowed in terms of the order passed hereinabove, and Ia No. 11770/95 filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for direction to the General Manager Telephone Nigam Limited, K.L. Bhawan, New Delhi, for restoration of telephone No. 3016818 installed at D-56, Malcha Marg, New Delhi is allowed. The defendants are directed to get the above telephone connected within two weeks from today. Post the matter for framing of issues on 13.08.1997.