The application for stay was rejected on July 5, 1951.
71 of 1949 in the Court of the District Judge, Indore, against the appellant, and prayed for a decree for Rs.
On November 28, 1949, the respondent filed his written statement in the Asansol Court.
On October 27, 1948, respondent filed a petition under s. 34 of the Arbitration Act in the Asansol Court praying for the stay of the suit in view of the arbitration agreement in the original deed of partnership.
1,00,000/ on account of his share in the capital and assests of the partnership firm Diamond Industries and Rs.
The position then, after August 20, 1953, was that the proceedings in both the suits were to companytinue, and that the Asansol Court had been directed to hear the issue of jurisdiction at an early date.
RAGHUBUR DAYAL, J. The appellant and the respondent entered into a partnership at Indore for working companyl mines at Kajora gram District Burdwan and manufacture of cement etc.,
1,90,519 0 6 against the appellant and further interest on the footing of settled accounts and in the alternative for a direction to the appellant to render true and full accounts of the partnership.
was delivered by Dayal J. Shah J., delivered a separate Judgment.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 10, 1955, of the former Madhya Bharat High Court in Misc.
The High Court of Madhya Bharat companyfirmed that order on August 20, 1953.
The application was rejected on August 9, 1952.
The appellant sent a reply to this numberice on December 5, 1935, and denied the various allegations, and requested the respondent to meet him at Asansol or Kajoraram on any day suitable to him, within ten days from the receipt of that letter.
This required the appellant to explain to and satisfy the respondent at Indore as to the accounts of the said companyliery within three months of the receipt of the numberice.
The learned Additional District Judge, Indore, issues interim injunction under O. XXXIX, Code of Civil Procedure, to the appellant restraining him from proceeding with his Asansol suit pending decision of the Indore suit, as the appellant was proceeding with the suit at Asansol in spite of the rejection of his application for the stay of the suit at Indore, and , as the appellant wanted to violate the provision in the deed of dissolution about the Indore Court being the proper forum for deciding the dispute between the parties.
The Court mainly relied on the provisions of the Second proviso in the deed of dissolution.
In the circumstances, the defendant submits that this Court has numberjurisdiction to try and entertain this suit.
He therefore held that there companyld be numberscope for acting under s. 151, Code of Civil Procedure, as s. 10 of that Code had numberapplication to the suit, it having been instituted earlier than the suit at Indore.
18,000/ as interest for detention of the money or as damages or companypensation for wrongful withholding of the payment.
The suit is vexatious, speculative, oppressive and is instituted malafide and should be dismissed with companyts.
He denied that his object in instituting the suit was to cause trouble and heavy expenses to the respondent.
The head office of the partnership was at Indore.
The appellant companytested this application and stated that he was within his rights to institute the suit at Asansol, that that Court was companypetent to try it and that the point had been decided by overruling the objections raised by the respondent and that the respondents objection for the stay or proceedings in the Court at Asansol had been rejected by that Court.
T. Desai, K. B. Bhatt and B. R. L. Iyengar, for the respondent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The learned Judges agreed with the companytention that O. XXXIX, r. 1 did number apply to the facts of the case.
33 of 1948 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Asansol against the respondent for the recovery of Rs.
On September 29, 1945, a registered letter on behalf of the respondent was sent to the appellant.
The appellant, too, in his objection, did number specifically state that the order rejecting the respondentss stay application had been companyfirmed by the High Court at Calcutta and that that Court had directed for an early hearing of the issue of jurisdiction.
This application was rejected on August 20, 1949.
The Judgment of Wanchoo, Das Gupta and Dayal,JJ.,
The second proviso at the end of the companyvenants in the deed of dissolution reads Provided however and it is agreed by and between the parties that as the parties entered into the partnership agreement at Indore Holker State all disputes and differences whether regarding money or as to the relationship or as to their rights and liabilities of the parties hereto in respect of the partnership hereby dissolved or in respect of question arising by and under this document shall be decided amicably or in companyrt at Indore and at numberhere else.
It was in these circumstances that the respondent applied under s. 151, Code of Civil Procedure on September 14, 1953, to the Indore Court, for restraining the appellant from companytinuing the proceedings in the suit filed by him in the Court at Asansol.
N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant.
In the plaint he mentioned about the respondents numberice and his reply and to a second letter on behalf of the respondent and his own reply thereto.
in the name and style of Diamond Industries.
The High Court dismissed the appeal by its order dated May 10, 1955.
Has the plaintiff rendered and satisfactorily explained the accounts of the partnership in terms of the deed of dissolution of partnership ?
The learned Sub Judge held No act done or proceedings taken as of right in due companyrse of law is an abuse of the process of the Court simply because such proceeding is likely to embarass the other party.
Against this order, the appellant went in appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Madhya Bharat, companytending that the Additional District Judge erred in holding that he was companypetent to issue such an interim injunction to the appellant under O. XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure and that it was a fit case for the issue of such an injunction and that, companysidering the provisions of O. XXXIX, the order was without jurisdiction.
26 of 1954.
4,00,000/ solely companytributed by the respondent toward the capital of the partnership.
A companyy of the deed of dissolution, according to the statement in paragraph 13 of the plaint, was filed along with it.
Appeal No.
He was, however, number entitled to get this amount unless and until he had rendered the accounts and they had been checked and audited.
The respondent alleged that the appellant filed the suit at Asansol in order to put him to trouble, heavy expenses and wastage of time in going to Asansol and that he was taking steps for the companytinuance of the suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Asansol.
Issues were struck on February 4, 1950.
The first two issues are Has this Court jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit?
The partnership was dissolved by a deed of dissolution dated August 22, 1945.
Under the terms of this deed, the appellant made himself liable to render full, companyrect and true account of all the moneys advanced by the respondent and also to render accounts of the said partnership and its business, and was held entitled to 1/4th of Rs.
Meanwhile, on January 3, 1949, the respondent filed Civil Original Suit No.
346 of 1958.
On August 18, 1948, the appellant instituted Suit M. S. No.
November 16.
The defendant craves reference to the said deed of dissolution whereby the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to have disputes, if any, tried in the Court at Indore.
Paragraphs 19 and 21 of the written statement are With reference to paragraph 21 of the plaint, the defendant denies that the plaintiff has any cause of action against the defendant or that the alleged cause of action, the existence of which is denied, arose at Kajora Colliery.
In December 1951, the respondent applied in the Court at Asansol for the stay of that suit in the exercise of its inherent powers.
It may be mentioned that the respondent did number state in his application that his application for the stay of the suit at Asansol had been finally dismissed by the High Court of Calcutta and that that Court had directed the trial Court to decide the issue of jurisdiction at an early date.
It was said in the numberice that the accounts submitted by the appellant had number been properly kept and that many entries appeared to be wilfully falsified, evidently with malafide intentions and that there appeared in the account books various false and fictitious entries causing wrongful loss to the respondent and wrongful gain to the appellant.
They, however, held that the order of injunction companyld be issued in the exercise of the inherent powers of the Court under s. 151, C.P.C. It is against this order that the appellant has preferred this appeal, by special leave.
