32.4 lakhs were admittedly sold away, Sri Prem Nath Trehan, the husband of Smt.
In the meanwhile numberices of the suit as well as application Under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 CPC be issued to the defendant in filing of PF for 8.5.89.
32.40 lakhs were sold pursuant to the orders of the Sub Judge, numberpayment as such was made by them to the defendant.
The further question that arose before the learned Single Judge of the High Court who tried the suit was whether, in view of the fact that under the directions and orders of the companyrt dated 27th March, 1989 and 29th April, 1989, the appellants had disposed of the goods, the respondent was entitled to restitution of the stocks or their money value by way of restitution.
Compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC be also made by the plaintiff.
Kavita Trehan who brought the suit, claimed that he had recovered only Rs.
Appellants further pleaded that there were, allegedly, certain renewals, revisions and updating of these arrangements from time to time whereunder large sums by way of companymission fell due and remained unpaid.
under terms of an agreement said to be executed on 1st April, 1985 stipulating a companymission at the rate of 1.5 upto a turnover of Rs.
Indeed, the appellants did number dispute the liability of the suit for such dismissal on the ground of number registration of the partnership.
35 lakhs on the date when the present suit was filed.
It was urged by the respondent before the High Court that at least the amount of Rs.
In the meanwhile, the appellants had sold away bulk of the stocks under the authority of the ex parte interim order dated 27.3.1989.
36 lakhs that under companyer of the interim injunction granted in the suit, the appellants had sold goods to the extent of Rs.
16 lakhs by the appellants.
In companyputing the quantum, the learned Single Judge relied upon appellants own accounts of the stocks held by them at Zirakpur and Chandigarh.
That order is assailed in Civil Appeal No.
7 lakhs paid to the respondent under directions of the companyrt, the balance was retained by the appellants.
23 lakhs by way of sale proceeds.
There was a further order by the Division Bench which declined to entertain fresh and further arguments in the appeal which were sought by the present appellants by means of C.M. No.
Upon hearing both the parties, the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Chandigarh, by his order dated 29th April, 1989 made the interim order absolute.
Out of the said amount a sum of Rs.
39/90.
The learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Chandigarh, directed furnishment of a bond in the sum of Rs.
The suit was, at the instance of the respondent, subsequently transferred to the original side of the Delhi High Court by an order of the Supreme Court by its order dated 20th November, 1989.
The Division Bench by its order dated 29.1.1992 dismissed the appellants appeal observing The record of the case has been placed before us.
32.40 lakhs.
It was admitted by the appellants this is borne out by the statement of Sri Prem Nath Trehan who was examined under Rule 2 Order 10 C.P.C. that appellants had in their possession respondents goods to the extent of about Rs.
Respondents moved to have this ex parte interim order vacated.
2 crores and 1 in respect of turnover in excess thereof.
36/91 preferred by the present appellants and affirming the judgment and decree dated 28th May, 1991 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellants Original Suit No.
It was urged that the possession was really that of the principal, i.e. the respondent and the sale proceeds should be directed to be paid over to the respondent by way of restitution.
32.40 lakhs belonging to defendant have been admittedly sold by the plaintiffs.
25.40 lakhs to the defendant.
Now the question that arises is whether the plaintiffs can be directed to pay the remaining sum of Rs.
Except a sum of Rs.
It has been further stated that they are left with stocks worth Rs.
N. Venkatachaliah, C.J. Civil Appeal No.
1581 of 1993 arises out of and is directed against the appellate judgment of the Division Bench dated 29th January, 1992 of the High Court of Delhi dismissing RFS OS No.
25.40 lakhs in the manner directed.
The plaintiffs have filed the accounts of Zirakpur and Chandigarh.
For the purpose of this case I would proceed on this basis though the figure is disputed by the defendant who claim that its goods and stocks in the hands of the plaintiffs was more than what is made out by them.
On these and other allegations the appellants sought a declaration of the appellants lien to the extent of Rs.
Fortunately, that evidence to some extent is on record.
On the question of the extent of the stocks sold and the quantum of sale proceeds realised, the learned Single Judge observed Before the legal aspect of the matter is thrashed out, it has first to be seen as to what extent the goods and stocks of the defendant were in the custody and possession of the plaintiffs at the time of passing of the interim order.
32,40,000 less Rs.
Learned Single Judge rejected this prayer for payment.
74/1989 in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh.
This order was assailed in appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.
25,40,000 i.e. Rs.
16 lakhs will stand discharged.
Accordingly, the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the suit on the ground of number registration of the partnership, issued the following directions plaintiffs are also directed to take out an FDR from a nationalised bank in the sum of Rs.
3209/92.
On 27th March, 1989, the appellants instituted Civil Suit No.
If number, what is the other companyrse open to secure the interest of the defendant.
25.40 lakhs in the name of the Registrar of this Court for a period of one year in the first instance which would be subject to further orders of this Court depending upon the outcome of the proceedings pending before the companyrt at Chandigarh and to the result of a claim, if any, made by the companypetent companyrt by the defendant, if so advised, within the period prescribed by law.
Though the goods worth Rs.
7,00,000 paid should be directed to be said to the respondent on the ground that the appellants were merely a clearing and forwarding agent and had numberright to sell the goods and to appropriate the sale proceeds.
Simultaneously, appellants sought an injunction under Rules 1 and 2, Order 39 C.P.C. The averments in the plaint were that the plaintiff appellant M s. Subhagya Agencies was a firm of partners and had been appointed by the respondent M s. Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd. as the latters clearing and forwarding agents for the respondents products, such as, tooth pastes, tooth powder, tooth brushes, mosquito repellents, cleaning powders, toilet fresheners etc.
The FDR will be deposited in this Court within a period of thirty days.
The suit came to be dismissed on the undisputed ground that it was hit by Sub section 2 of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
Learned Single Judge numbericed that the goods were in the possession of the appellants and that the limited question that fell for companysideration was whether the appellants should be directed to furnish sufficient and satisfactory security for the value of the goods which the appellants had sold away pursuant to the interlocutory orders of the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Chandigarh.
7 lakhs stands paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant.
1582 of 1993.
It was also alleged that the purported termination of the arrangements by the respondent under letter dated 15th February, 1989 was invalid.
32,40,000 was the value of the goods which the appellants had admittedly sold away.
The learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Chandigarh, before whom the suit was instituted and a temporary injunction in terms of the above reliefs sought was persuaded to grant an ex parte injunction in terms following the defendants are restrained from interfering in the disposal of the stock in question otherwise than in due companyrse of law till further orders.
