Disputes arose between the partners as a result of which an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act was made before the High Court and the High Court on hearing the application referred the dispute to the sole arbitration of a retired Judge of the Allahabad High Court.
Thereafter the appellant being aggrieved by this order filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27 10 1978 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Original No.
In the appeal it appears that a companysent order was passed with the agreement of the parties by which Shri Mahabir Prasad, Advocate and Secretary, Bar Association of Sitapur was appointed as a receiver of the Laxmi Talkies pending the decision of the arbitrator and was directed to run the said cinema after taking possession from the appellant.
The application for appointment of a receiver was allowed and the respondent Sudhir Bhasin himself was appointed as a receiver of Laxmi Talkies, Sitapur.
This order passed by the High Court may be quoted in extenso as it forms the solid basis for the proceedings for companytempt taken against the appellant by the High Court After hearing the learned companynsel for sometime on previous hearings, a suggestion has been mooted that if the receiver is changed, the applicant would number prosecute the present appeal except to the extent of getting the Receiver changed.
Along with the aforesaid application, the respondent Sudhir Bhasin had filed an application for appointment of a receiver as he apprehended that the appellant would misappropriate the funds of the partnership property.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
501 of 1978.
Miss Seita Vaidialingant for respondent 1.
A detailed narrative of the facts culminating in the order impugned is to be found in the judgment of the High Court and it is number necessary for us to repeat the same all over again except giving a brief resume of the important facts in order to appreciate the points of law that arise in the appeal.
B. Asthana, Satish Chandra, Sarat Chandra and P. D. Sharma for the Appellant.
The partnership deed was executed as far back as 19 11 1965 and clause 25 of that deed companytained the usual arbitration clause.
61/77.
It appears that there was a partnership between Sudhir Bhasin and Jagatri Lal Bhasin as a result of which a firm under the style of Sitapur Theatres with its Head Office at Delhi was companystituted.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. This is an appeal by the companytemner under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against a Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court dated 27th October, 1978 companyvicting the appellant under section 2 b of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 hereinafter referred to as the Act and sentencing him to detention in civil prison for a period of four months.
Nemo for respondent 2.
