Alka Gupta vs Narender Kumar Gupta
2009 Latest Caselaw 3590 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+        R.F.A. (OS) 60/2009 & CM 9942/2009

                                           Reserved on: 1st September, 2009

                                       Pronounced on: 7th September, 2009

#        ALKA GUPTA                                               ..... Petitioner
!                                    Through: Ms. Sunita Harish, Advocate

                           Versus

$        NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA               ..... Respondent
^                    Through: Mr. Rajeev Awasthi, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

         1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed
            to see the Judgment? No

         2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

         3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the
            Digest? Yes


V.K.Jain, J.

This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated

March 13, 2009 whereby CS (OS) No. 302 of 2007, filed by the

appellant, has been dismissed. The brief facts, as stated in the

pleadings are as under:

2. Vide partnership deed dated April 05, 2000, the appellant /

plaintiff and the defendant / respondent entered into a partnership

Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta for running an educational institute under the name and style of

M/s. Takshila Institute. As per the terms and conditions of

partnership, the place of business of firm was to be F-19, LAC,

Bhera Enclave, Paschim Vihar, Delhi - 110 087 and / or other place

or places as mutually decided by the parties. The fee etc. used to

be collected by defendant / respondent, who was also maintaining

books of accounts and managing the affairs of the firm. The

defendant / respondent had been withdrawing money from time to

time, from the accounts of the firm whereas no money, at all, was

received by the plaintiff / appellant, as her share of the profit. A

Civil Suit for permanent injunction was filed by the defendant /

respondent against the plaintiff/appellant, her husband Shri

Navindu Gupta and her brother in law Shri Rajan Gupta, which

was later on withdrawn on 16.10.2004. As a result of institution of

the suit, the partnership being „At Will‟, stood dissolved from the

date of institution of the suit and the defendant did not have any

right to use the name, style and goodwill of „Takshila Institute‟. A

legal notice dated 8.3.05 was sent by the plaintiff / appellant to the

defendant / respondent, requiring him to stop using the name

„Takshila Institute‟ or its similar or phonetic variation. He was also

called upon to render full and true account of the income and

expenditure of the partnership firm. It has been further stated

Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta that during the subsisting of the partnership, the defendant /

respondent had opened another institute under the name and style

of „M/s. Taxila Institute at C-9/5, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi using the

same photographs of students, logo, pictures etc. According to the

plaintiff / appellant, the defendant / respondent is also liable to

account for and pay the share of the plaintiff / appellant in the

profits earned from „M/s. Taxila Institute‟. It is further stated in

the plaint that the defendant / respondent was also using the

goodwill of the partnership business to run other institutes in the

name and style of „Takshila Institute‟ at Janakpuri, Ashok Vihar

and Kalu Sarai, all at Delhi, and also at Dehradoon, Uttranchal,

Uttranchal, and Palampur, in Himachal Pradesh. The plaintiff

sought a preliminary decree for rendition of accounts, directing

the defendants to render complete accounts of all money received

and expenditure incurred by him in connection with the business

carried out under the partnership agreement dated 5.4.2000 and

also all the monies earned by him by using the goodwill of

„Takshila Institute‟ at all places including the „Taxila Institute‟ at

Rohini. A final decree with costs along with a decree of Rs. 25.28

lacs or a higher amount as per details stated to have been given in

Annexure A was also sought.

Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta

3. The defendant / respondent filed Written Statement taking

preliminary objection that the suit was barred by the principles of

res judicata as similar dispute had already been adjudicated

between the parties, vide Suit No. 16/06 titled as „Smt. Alka Gupta

Versus Shri Narender Kumar Gupta‟, decided by the court of Shri

Paramjit Singh, Additional District Judge on 25.11.2006. It has

been further alleged that during subsisting of the partnership, the

plaintiff and Smt. Deepa Gupta, wife of the defendant, jointly

acquired immovable properties including second floor of property

No. 8, Block C-9 in Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi. Since disputes arose

between the parties, it was finally decided that total value of the

partnership firm will be made and 50 per cent share of the plaintiff

would be calculated and paid to her, and she would relinquish all

her rights and claim in the institute, which will then become an

absolute property of the defendant. The total value was assessed

at Rs. 46.00 lacs and it was decided that the plaintiff will get Rs.

23.00 lacs from the defendant and transfer all her claims in the

partnership to him. A Biyana Agreement dated 29.6.04 was

executed between the parties. The payment of Rs. 23.00 lacs,

agreed to be made to the plaintiff under the Biyana Agreement,

included Rs. 21.5 lacs against her 50 per cent share in the institute

and also the transfer of her undivided half share in the second

Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta floor of property No. 8, in Block C-9 of Rohini, Delhi. The

partnership stood dissolved on execution of agreement dated

29.6.04. Since, instead of fulfilling the terms of the agreement

dated 29.6.04, the defendant, along with her husband Shri

Narender Gupta, tried to put her locks on the institute, a Civil Suit

was filed by the defendant against her. During pendency of the

suit, the plaintiff executed a Sale Deed on 13.8.04, in view of the

compromise between the parties, after receiving the entire

balance consideration of Rs. 14.00 lacs. In view of the terms and

settlement of the issues, the suit was disposed of on 16.10.2004.

4. On 17.1.2006, a Civil Suit being Suit No. 16/06 was filed by

the plaintiff alleging that a sum of Rs. 12.00 lacs was still due to

her towards the sale consideration. The suit filed by the plaintiff

was decreed. The stand taken by the defendant is that in view of

earlier suit No. 16/06, filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money,

the present suit was hit by the principles of res judicata and was

otherwise not maintainable as all her claims in „Takshila Institute‟

stood satisfied in terms of agreement dated 29.6.04.

5. The Biyana Agreement dated 29.06.2004 has been

reproduced in the judgment of the learned Single Judge Material

parts of the agreement read as under:-

Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta "1. That the Property/UNDIVIDED HALF SHARE SECOND FLOOR (WITHOUT ROOF RIGHTS) OF BUILT UP PROPERTY BEARING NO.8, POCKET & BLOCK C-9, SECTOR-8, ROHINI, DELHI-110085, BUILT ON A PLOT OF LAND AREA MEASURING 158.98 SQ. MTRS. AND 50% Share of M/s.Takshila Institute, established in the above said property which is hereby agreed to be sold includes all rights, titles, interests, goodwill, electricity equipment, furniture, fixtures including, passages, easements, facilities, privileges etc. which are attached thereto or connected therewith.

13. That the Property hereby sold includes the Goodwill of the firm M/S.Takshila Institute, having its office at C-9/8, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi-85, in which the first party is also the partner of 50%. Moreover it is specifically agreed by the first party that the property includes all rights interest, claims, title, furniture, fitting and all furniture, fixture and all equipments of M/S. Takshila Institute."

6. Admittedly a receipt was also executed by the

plaintiff/appellant on 29th June, 2004. The relevant portion of the

receipt read as under:-

"RECEIPT I/We, SMT. ALKA GUPTA W/O. DR. NAVINDU GUPTA R/O. H.NO.81, DEEPALI, PITAMPURA, DELHI; do hereby acknowledge and confirm that I/We have received from SH.NARENDER GUPTA, S/O. SH. S.P.GUPTA R/O. E-20/63, SECTOR-3, ROHINI, DELHI-110085, a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-

.................................................................. being advance/bayana towards the sale of UNDIVIDED HALF SHARE SECOND FLOOR (WITHOUT ROOF RIGHTS) OF BUILT UP PROPERTY BEARING NO.8, POCKET & BLOCK C-9, SECTOR-8, ROHINI,

Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta DELHI-110085, BUILT ON A PLOT OF LAND AREA MEASURING 158.87 SQ.MTSR. and 50% Share of M/S. Takshila Institute, established in the above said property which is includes all rights, titles, interests, goodwill, electricity equipment, furniture, fixtures including passages, easements, facilities, privileges etc. which are attached thereto or connected therewith in this premises."

7. Paras 4, 5, 6, 8 & 9 of the plaint in Civil Suit No.16/2006, to

the extent they are relevant, filed by the appellant/plaintiff read as

under:-

"4. That an Agreement to Sell dated 29.06.2004, called the „Bayana Agreement‟ had taken place between the defendant and the plaintiff at Delhi in respect of undivided half share of the plaintiff in respect of the Second Floor of the built up property, without roof rights, bearing no.8, Pocket & Block C- 9, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi 110 085. The said agreement has been annexed herewith this plaint.

5. That under the said Agreement, in consideration of the sale of the half share of the plaintiff in the said property, including the goodwill, rights, interest, claims, title furniture, fixtures, fittings and equipment of the Partnership Firm doing business from the said address under the name and style of M/s.Takshila Institute, the defendant had agreed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.21.5 lacs. The defendant admitted this fact at para 10 of the plaint dated 30.7.2004 of his suit no. 438/2004, which is reproduced as follows:

10. That the defendant No.1 executed a BAYANA Agreement dated 29.06.2004 for the sale of her rights, title and interest in the built up premises in which the Takshila Institute is housed at present, that is, 2nd floor of the property bearing no.8, Pocket and Block C-9, Sector-8, Rohini, and also the goodwill,

Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta title, interests in the Takshila Institute, in favour of the plaintiff No.1, true copy of the said Agreement is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure XIV, and received Rs.7.5 lacs has advance money for which she executed a proper receipt copy whereof is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure XV. That under the above said agreement the residue amount of Rs.14 lacs is to be paid to the defendant no.1 on or before 29.8.2004.

6. That the price of the share of the plaintiff in the above said immovable property had been agreed between them as Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Only), and the balance amount of Rs.19.5 lacs (Rupees Nineteen Lacs fifty Thousand only) had been agreed by the defendant to be paid to her in lieu of her share of the goodwill of the Takshila Institute, her share in the furniture, fittings, intellectual property in the form of Course Materials developed for the students and her future rights in the Takshila Institute."

8. That the plaintiff executed a Sale Deed in respect of her share of the immovable property mentioned above in favour of the defendant on 13.08.2004 for the sum of Rs. Two Lakh stipulated for it. The defendant promised to pay her the balance of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rs. Twelve Lakh Only) towards her further rights and interests stated above in Takshila Institute. However, the defendant had apparently had no intention to fully honour the „Bayana Agreement dated 29.06.2004, and began to avoid the plaintiff and her demands on one pretext or the year.

9. That under the circumstances, the defendant has paid to the plaintiff only Rs. 9.5 Lakh out of the agreed consideration of Rs. 21.5 Lakh, that is, Rs.

Two Lakh only for the share of the plaintiff in the said immovable property, and a sum of Rs. 7.5 Lakh towards part payment for her agreed further rights in Takshila Institute leaving the balance of Rs. 12 Lakh due upon him. The further rights of the

Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta plaintiff include, but are not limited to her share of the goodwill of Takshila Institute. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the said amount from the defendant with interest and costs."

8. A perusal of the above referred documents would clearly

show that the plaintiff/appellant had agreed to sell (i) her

undivided half share in second floor of built up property No.8,

Pocket and Block C-9, Sector 8, Rohini and (ii) her 50% share in

the partnership firm M/s Takshila Institute, including all her

rights, title, interest, goodwill etc., to the defendant/respondent.

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the

plaintiff/appellant had sold her right, title and goodwill etc. only in

respect of the Institute being run in Rohini and not in respect of

her share in the entire business of the partnership firm cannot be

accepted. Admittedly, there was only one partnership between the

parties. There were no separate partnerships for the Institute in

Rohini and Paschim Vihar. The plaintiff/appellant expressly sold

her half share in the goodwill of the firm to the respondent. The

goodwill can be only of the firm name and there can‟t be separate

goodwills for different Institutes being run by the firm under the

same name and style. The partnership firm was being run under

the name and style of M/s Takshila Institute, therefore, the

goodwill could be only of Takshila Institute as a whole. The very

Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta fact that the goodwill of the partnership firm was also sold by the

appellant to the respondent, in addition to equipment, furniture,

fixtures etc. is a strong indicator of the fact that what the

appellant had relinquished/sold was all her right, title and interest

in the entire partnership firm and not only in one of the two

Institutes being run by it.

9. The view being taken by us finds support from the specific

averments made in para 5, 6, 8 & 9 of the plaint of Suit No.

16/2006 filed by the plaintiff/appellant. In para 6 of the plaint, she

specifically averred that the balance amount of Rs.19.5 lakhs had

been agreed to be paid to her in lieu of her share in the furniture,

fittings, intellectual property in the form of course material

developed for the students and her future rights in the Takshila

Institute. In paragraph 8 of the plaint, the plaintiff/appellant

specifically averred that the defendant/respondent had promised

to pay her the balance of Rs.12 lakhs towards her further rights

and interests in Takshila Institute. In paragraph 9 of the plaint, it

was reiterated that the defendant has paid to the plaintiff only

Rs.9.5 lakhs, that is, Rs.2 lakhs for the share of the plaintiff in the

annual property and a sum of Rs.7.5 lakhs towards part-payment

for her agreed further rights in Takshila Institute.

Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta

10. The plaint was drafted by a lawyer and not by a layman.

Had the Biyana Agreement dated 29th June, 2004 been confined to

the share of the plaintiff/appellant in the business being run by the

firm in Rohini and had not included her share in the business

being run by the firm in Paschim Vihar, the appellant/plaintiff

would have specifically stated so in the plaint.

11. We find that this has never been the case of the

plaintiff/appellant, at any point of time, that vide Bayana

Agreement dated 29.06.04 she had sold her right, title and interest

only in respect of that business of the partnership firm which was

being run in Rohini and she continued to be entitled to the profits

earned by the partnership firm from the business which was being

run by it at Paschim Vihar. A perusal of the notice dated 8th

March, 2005, alleged to have been sent by the appellant to the

respondent, a copy of which has been filed by the

plaintiff/appellant herself, would show that she did not claim that

she had settled only her share in the profits of the business being

run by the firm in Rohini and what remained to be paid to her was

her share in the profits of the business being run by the firm at

Paschim Vihar. Her claim was that she was entitled to rendition of

accounts for the entire business of the firm. This is yet another

circumstance which shows that the agreement dated 29th June,

Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta 2004 related to share of the plaintiff/appellant in respect of entire

business of the partnership firm and was not confined to the

business being run by it in Rohini.

12. Even in the plaint of Suit No.302/2007 which has been

dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment

dated 13th March, 2009, the plaintiff/appellant has nowhere stated

that she had sold her right, title and interest in respect of the

business being run by the firm at Rohini, and therefore, she was

entitled to rendition of accounts in respect of the business being

run by the firm in Paschim Vihar. The case set up by her is that

she was entitled to but has not been given a share in all the profits

earned by the partnership firm.

13. Admittedly, the plaintiff/appellant and defendant/respondent

had written a joint letter to the Manager, Punjab National Bank,

Paschim Vihar on 13th August, 2004 informing him that they did

not intend to continue operation of the bank account which may be

closed and the proceeds of the account may be transferred to SB

Account No.2107. This letter is yet another strong indicator that

the plaintiff/appellant had sold all her right, title, interest and

claims in the entire partnership firm, to the respondent, vide

Bayana Agreement dated 29th June, 2004 and that was the reason

why the joint account being operated by both of them was closed.

Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta Had the accounts in respect of Paschim Vihar business also not

been settled, there would have been no occasion for the parties to

close the account which was being jointly operated by them.

14. This is not the case of the plaintiff/appellant that the firm

was maintaining separate accounts, one for the business being run

by it in Rohini and the other for the business being run in Paschim

Vihar. Ordinarily, when there is a Settlement between the

partners of the firm whereby they agree to part ways, the

Settlement effected between them would cover accounts of the

entire business being run by them in partnership and it would not

be confined only to one part of the business. This is more so when

the document executed between the parties at the time of parting

ways and setting the disputes does not reserve any right in favour

of the outgoing partner, to receive any further payment from the

partner who retains the business of the erstwhile firm. In none of

the documents executed between the parties, there is an averment

that the accounts of business being run in Paschim Vihar had not

been settled or that the plaintiff/appellant would not, in addition to

the sum referred in the document, also be entitled to share of the

profit earned by the firm from its business in Paschim Vihar. Vide

endorsement made on the receipt dated 29.6.2004, the husband of

the appellant recorded that Paschim Vihar Institute Deed would be

Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta settled in the name of Dr.Rashmi Gupta for the consideration of

Rs.15 lakhs. This is yet another proof of the fact that the matter

relating to Paschim Vihar Institute had also been finally settled

between the parties. During the course of arguments before us, it

was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the

endorsement was made by the husband of the appellant without

authority from her. Since we noticed a Gentleman giving

instructions to the learned counsel for the appellant, during the

course of the hearing before us, we asked her as to who the

gentleman was and we were told that he was none other than the

husband of the appellant. This leaves no doubt in our mind that

the husband of the appellant was acting on authority from her

when he made endorsements on the Bayana Agreement and

Receipt dated 29.6.2004. The shifting stands taken before him

have been noted in detail, by the learned Single Judge.

15. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, we are in

agreement with the learned Single Judge in holding that the

plaintiff/appellant having sold all her right, title and interest

including goodwill of the partnership firm to the

respondent/defendant vide Bayana Agreement dated 29th June,

2004, nothing remained for the defendant/respondent to account

for to plaintiff/appellant. At this stage, we would like to note that

Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta the sale consideration for the share of the plaintiff/appellant in the

immovable property was only Rs.2,00,000/- as is evident from the

sale deed executed by her. Obviously, the remaining amount

represented her share in the profit, goodwill and assets of the

firm. The suit for rendition of account does not lie, in view of

settlement between the parties.

As regards claim for rendition of accounts in respect of

business carried by the respondent under the name and style of

M/s. „Taxila Institute‟, admittedly, the Appellant was not a partner

in that business. Her claim for a share in the profits of this firm is

based on the allegation that he had used a name identical to the

name „Takshila Institute‟, in which both of them were partners.

The goodwill of the firm belonged to both the parties till

29.6.2004, when it came to be vested solely in the respondent.

The cause of action for using a name similar to the name „Takshila

Institute‟ being an altogether different cause of action, requiring

different pleading with complete particulars of the alleged

business and leading altogether different evidence, it is open to

the appellant/plaintiff to file a separate suit in this regard, if such a

relief is otherwise available to her in law. In any case, no

arguments on this aspect were advanced either before the learned

Single Judge or before us.

Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta

16. Suit No.16/2006 was filed by the plaintiff/appellant on 17 th

January, 2006 on the averments that she had entered into a

partnership with the defendant/respondent under the name and

style of Takshila Institute and had jointly acquired immovable

properties including second floor of built up property No.8, Pocket

and Block C-9, Sector 8, Rohini and that the defendant had not so

far rendered accounts and given her share of profits and assets of

the partnership firm to her despite her demand for the same. She

further alleged that she executed the sale deed in respect of her

share of the immovable property believing the promise of the

defendant to pay the balance amount of Rs.12,00,000/- towards

her further rights and interest in Takshila Institute. Despite these

averments, the plaintiff chose to claim only a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-

from the defendant/respondent alongwith a sum of Rs.1,53,000/-

as interest on the amount of Rs.12,00,000/-. The plaintiff neither

claimed rendition of account nor did she seek leave of the court to

sue afterwards, for relief of rendition of accounts.

17. Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to the extent

it is relevant, reads as under:-

2. Suit to include the whole claim. -

(1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish

Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court.

(2) Relinquishment of part of claim

- Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.

(3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs. - A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs, but if he omits, except with the leave of the court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted."

The cause of action in the two suits may be the same though

the facts alleged may not be exactly identical in the two cases. It

is not open to the plaintiff to split up the parts that really

constitute the same cause of action and file different suits in

respect of different parts. If the foundation of the previously

instituted suit and the subsequently instituted suit is one and the

same, Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, would come

in to play and preclude the filing of the second suit. A perusal of

the Affidavit filed by the plaintiff/appellant in suit No.16/2006

instituted by her, would show that she did not confine her

deposition to the Bayana Agreement dated 29.6.2004. In fact, she

started with constitution of partnership firm vide Agreement dated

Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta 5.4.2000 and claimed that there was no formal dissolution of the

partnership and the defendant had not rendered accounts and

given her shares of profits and assets of the partnership, despite

her demand for the same.

18. The foundation of action for claiming a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-

as well as for claiming rendition of account is the same, i.e.,

partnership deed between the parties to run business under the

name and style of M/s Takshila Institute. Had there been no

partnership between the parties, there would have been no

occasion for execution of Bayana Agreement and receipt dated 29th

June, 2004 nor would there have been any occasion for the

plaintiff/appellant to claim rendition of accounts. Accepting that

the relief of recovery of Rs.12,00,000/- and relief for rendition of

accounts are separate reliefs, the plaintiff/appellant was

nevertheless required to claim both the reliefs in the first suit filed

by her, as basic cause of action for claiming both the reliefs was

one and the same. This is not the case of the plaintiff/appellant

that cause of action to seek rendition of account had not accrued

to her before she filed suit No.16/2006. She claims to have given

notice seeking rendition of account on 8th March, 2005. In the

plaint of Suit No. 16/2006, she specifically stated that she was

entitled to rendition of accounts, for which she reserved her right

Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta to file a separate suit. Cause of action for claiming rendition of

account having already accrued to her at that time, she was

obliged, in law, to claim that relief in suit No.16/2006, unless she

obtained leave of the court to sue at a later date, for relief of

rendition of accounts. Unilateral reservation of right to sue at a

later date does not entitle the plaintiff/appellant to file a fresh suit

at a later date, for rendition of accounts. Accepting the contention

that the plaintiff/appellant was not obliged to sue for rendition of

account while filing of Suit No.16/2006 and she could, in law, seek

rendition of account at a later date, within the prescribed period of

limitation available to her for this purpose, would result in

multiplicity of legal proceedings which would defeat the very

purpose behind enactment of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil

Procedure i.e. to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

19. Admittedly, the plaintiff/appellant was a Government teacher

when she entered into partnership with the defendant/respondent

and she continued to hold that post during subsistence of

partnership. It has not been disputed before us that under the

rules applicable to her, the plaintiff/appellant could not have

entered into partnership to do business. She being a Government

servant, applicable rules precluded her from doing any business.

The plaintiff/appellant acted in total breach of the Conduct Rules

Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta applicable to her by starting a firm in partnership with the

respondent. The learned Single Judge has taken the view that the

plaintiff/appellant having violated her terms of employment by

entering into partnership with the defendant/respondent, the

Court would not come to her assistance. Since we have agreed

with the learned Single Judge in holding that the suit is barred by

Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the

plaintiff/appellant had settled all her claims with the

respondent/defendant, under Bayana Agreement dated 29.6.2004,

we need not take a view on the question as to whether a

partnership Agreement of this nature can be enforced in a Court of

Law or not.

For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the

Appeal, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(V.K. JAIN) JUDGE

(VIKRAMAJIT SEN) JUDGE September 7, 2009/acm/sn/sk

Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta