Research › Browse › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 898 (DEL)

AMARJIT SINGH v. BHUPINDER SINGH

1998-11-01

DALVEER BHANDARI

body1998
Dalveer Bhandari, J. ( 1 ) THIS application has been moved on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XL, Rule I read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code for appointment of a Receiver. The plaintiff has filed a suit for dissolution of the partnership firm and rendition of account. ( 2 ) IT is mentioned in the application that in September, 1988, the plaintiff suffered a heart attack, and he could not look after the affairs of the partnership business for some time. Thereafter, the plaintiff s son has been attending to the partnership business as his representative. It came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the defendant has been transferring or otherwise disposing of the partnership properties or assets or converting its tenancy in favour of his wife and his brothers to the exclusion of the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the plaintiff has prayed. that during the pendency of the suit, to protect the possession of the partnership properties, assets and business and to look after the management of the partnership affairs, the Court may appoint a Receiver with the powers for the management, protection, preservation, improvement, collection of profits and to look after the affairs of the partnership business of M/s. Kirpal Singh Wazir Singh carried out from the property Nos. 5613 and 5613-A, Gandhi Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, either in the name of the partnership or in the individual names of the defendant or his relations etc. ( 3 ) MS. Nandini Sawhney, the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff invited my attention to various documents filed by the plaintiff. She has placed reliance on the Deed of Partnership dated 1. 4. 1978 in which it is incorporated that "the partnership business shall be carried on under the name and style of M/s. Kirpal Singh Wazir Singh. " It is mentioned in the Deed that "the profit or loss of the partnership shall be divided between the partners equally. " It is also mentioned that the tenancy rights in the premises No. 5613, Gandhi Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi shall vest in both the parties jointly. " It is mentioned in the Deed that "the profit or loss of the partnership shall be divided between the partners equally. " It is also mentioned that the tenancy rights in the premises No. 5613, Gandhi Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi shall vest in both the parties jointly. It is further mentioned that in the event of death of any of the partner or due to the inability of one of the partners to work as a partner or for any other reason, his legal heirs or if there are more than one, then his wife or eldest child will be taken in as a partrier in his place on the same terms and conditions. ( 4 ) MS. Sawhney has also drawn my attention to the Report of the Local Commissioner, who was appointed by the order of this Court dated 27. 7. 1993. The Report reveals that when the Local Commissioner had gone to the premises in question, instead of assisting the Local Commissioner, the defendant literally ran out of the premises. She has invited my attention to the document which is a declaration from the defendant that the firm had shifted its premises from 5613, Gandhi Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi to 6666, Kothi Memwali, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi-110006, w. e. f. 1. 4. 1993. Ms. Sawhney also invited my attention to the Sales Tax Assessment Order dated 22. 1. 1994, which shows that the firm s business was carried on till that day. She has also invited my attention to the Sale Tax Return dated 30. 9. 1990 in which the address of the firm has been shown as 5613, Gandhi Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-6. In these sales tax returns, the defendant had signed as a partner of the firm M/s. Kirpal Singh Wazir Singh. ( 5 ) REPLY to the application was filed on behalf of the defendant. It is mentioned that neither the defendant nor the concern M/s. Kirpal Singh Wazir Singh is in possession of the property bearing Nos. 5613 and 5613-A, Gandhi Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. It is further mentioned that the parties to the suit have no connection with the business being carried on in these premises. It is also mentioned in the reply that the business of the firm was closed on 14. 3. 1990 when the shop was completely destroyed in the fire that occurred on ] 6. 4. It is further mentioned that the parties to the suit have no connection with the business being carried on in these premises. It is also mentioned in the reply that the business of the firm was closed on 14. 3. 1990 when the shop was completely destroyed in the fire that occurred on ] 6. 4. 1990 and the firm was dissolved en 31. 7. 1990. It is mentioned that in the year 1988, the plaintiff started diverting the funds of partnership firm M/s. Kirpal Singh Wazir Singh to M/s. A. Pal and Co. consisting of Smt. Kanwaljeet Kaur and Shri Satpal Singh, the brother of the plaintiff as its partners, it is mentioned that the plaintiff is in possession of the stock and goods belonging to the partnership firm lying at its godown at 2327/2, Chaudhry Market, Teli Wara, Delhi-110006. In the reply, the defendant has denied the allegations that the defendant had transferred the tenancy rights and the defendant is using the assets and/or stock of the firm in any manner. ( 6 ) 1 have carefully considered the averments of the application and the reply. I have also considered the various documents filed by the plaintiff and the defendant. From the partnership Deed, it is clear that the plaintiff and the defendant who are first cousins entered into a partnership on 1st April, 1978. They had an equal (50-50) share in the partnership business. The tenancy rights of the premises 5613 and 5613-A, Gandhi Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, shall vest in both the partners jointly. The other immovable properties of the partnership firm is the godown which is in possession of the plaintiff. Both the plaintiff and the defendant had a right to carry on the partnership business from the said Gandhi Market premises. In view of the totally contradictory stand taken by the plaintiff and the defendant and in order to protect the partnership business, it has become imperative to appoint a Receiver in this matter. ( 7 ) I accordingly appoint Mr. S. C. Sharma, Advocate, B-11, Sagar Apartments, 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Phone No. 3381886) as the Receiver. The Receiver shall be paid Rs. 7500. 00 for executing the commission. The Receiver shall immediately go to the premises of the partnership firm at 5613 and 5613-A, Gandhi Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, its godowns, etc. S. C. Sharma, Advocate, B-11, Sagar Apartments, 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Phone No. 3381886) as the Receiver. The Receiver shall be paid Rs. 7500. 00 for executing the commission. The Receiver shall immediately go to the premises of the partnership firm at 5613 and 5613-A, Gandhi Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, its godowns, etc. and prepare complete inventories of raw materials and other goods lying in the said premises/godowns of the firm. The Receiver shall also submit a report as to who are the persons in physical possession of the premises No. 5613/5613- A, Gandhi Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The Receiver shall also indicate in his report whether the business is being carried on in the name of the partnership firm or any other name. The report shall be submitted by the Receiver to this Court within two weeks from today. List this application for further directions after receiving the report of the Receiver on 15th January, 1999. ( 8 ) THE Receiver be provided Police aid if it becomes imperative. Ordered accordingly.