This appeal, by special leave, is directed ,against that order.
During the pendency of the appeal here, one of the appellants.
130 and 140 of 1968.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated April 7, 1969 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in F.A.O. No.
We have already said that the injunction order was directed against the partners in the names of the firms and that it operated as against them.
1 in Civil Appeal No.
1296 1297 of 1971.
The defendant appellants ,preferred an appeal against that order to the High Court.
The companyrt granted an ex parte injunction.
P. Khosla, R. S. Sodhi and Hardev Singh, for respondent No.
On December 20, 1968, a suit was filed by a firm called Amin Chand and Sons through Shiv Dayal, in the District Court at Rohtak against three of the legal representatives of Bakshi Ram trading under the names Bakshi Ram and Sons, Sohan Lal and Brothers and Kaybus Industries and others, for a permanent injunction restraining them from using certain trade, marks.
On January 30, 1967, Bakshi Ram gave numberices to the other partners dissolving the firms.
Before the arbitrators, a question was raised whether the legal representatives of Bakshi Ram were entitled to companytinue the suits.
These applications were allowed and temporary injunction as prayed for was granted.
The injunction order operated against these persons as carrying on business in the names of the firms.
227 N of 1970.
That was vacated on the objection of the defendants in the suit.
The arbitrators stated a special case for the opinion of the companyrt under the first part of s. 13 b of the Act the question of law, whether the legal representatives are companypetent to, companytinue the suits.
N. Dikshit, S. K. Bisaria and Parmod Swaroop, for respondent No.
Certain trade marks were registered in the names of the firms.
The companyrt stayed the trial of the suits and referred the matter to arbitrators.
On October 3, 1967, Bakshi Ram filed two suits for rendition of accounts against the other two partners in the subordinate Judges companyrt at Jullundur.
125062 and 138979 which were originally registered in the name of Amin Chand and Sons of which Bakshi Ram, Shiv Dayal and Kishan Chand were partners.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
namely, Dharam Vir, died on May 14, 1970.
227 of 1970.
227 of 1970.
The defendants in the suits filed applications under s. 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act for stay of the trial of the suits on the ground that the companyrt had numberjurisdiction to proceed with the trial in view of the clause for arbitration in the partnership agreements.
L. Lakhanpal, S. K. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja, M. Qamaruddin and Vinod Dhavan, for the appellant in all the appeals.
Thereafter applications were filed by the plaintiff respondents for reviewing the order dismissing the application for temporary injunction, and for issue of a temporary injunction, to restrain the defendant appellants from using the trade marks registered in the name of Amin Chand and Sons of which Bakshi Ram was a partner.
There were two firms called Amin Chand and Sons and Landra Engineering foundry Works.
On February 4, 1968, Bakshi Ram died and his legal representatives, 10 in number, were brought on record.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MATHEW, J. Civil Appeal No.
1 in Civil Appeal Nos.
1296 97 of 1971.
The injunction order was issued against these persons in the names of the firms.
The plaintiff respondents in the suit applied for restraining the defendant appellants and their dealers from manufacturing or selling agricultural implements under the trade mark Nos.
The partners of the firms were three brothers Bakshi Ram, Shiv Dayal and Kishan Chand, after the retirement of the 4th partner.
On June 24, 1968, the parties agreed to have the matter referred to arbitration.
From the judgment and order dated 1st June 1971 of the Court of Senior Sub Judge, at Jullundur in Case No.
Order 30 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that numberwithstanding anything companytained in s. 45 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, two or more persons may sue or be sued in the name of a firm under the foregoing provisions and if any of such persons dies, whether before the institution or during the pendency of any suit, it shall number be necessary to join the legal representative of the deceased as a party to the suit.
41 of 1969 and civil appeals Nos.
The High Court companyfirmed the order.
