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.
Compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC be also made by the plaintiff.
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 20 11 1989.
Though the goods worth Rs 32.4 lakhs were admittedly sold away, Shri Prem Nath Trehan, the husband of Smt Kavita Trehan who brought the suit, claimed that he had recovered only Rs 23 lakhs by way of sale proceeds.
39 of 1990.
Except a sum of Rs 7 lakhs paid to the respondent under directions of the companyrt, the balance was retained by the appellants.
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.
36 of 1991 preferred by the present appellants and affirming the judgment and decree dated 28 5 1991 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellants Original Suit No.
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.
Respondents moved to have this ex parte interim order vacated.
It was also alleged that the purported termination of the arrangements by the respondent under letter dated 15 2 1989 was invalid.
It was admitted by the appellants this is borne out by the statement of Shri Prem Nath Trehan who was examined under Rule 2 Order 10 CPC that appellants had in their possession respondents goods to the extent of about Rs 36 lakhs that under companyer of the interim injunction granted in the suit, the appellants had sold goods to the extent of Rs 32.40 lakhs.
The learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Chandigarh, directed furnishment of a bond in the sum of Rs 16 lakhs by the appellants.
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 1989.
Simultaneously, appellants sought an injunction under Rules 1 and 2, Order 39 CPC.
74 of 1989 in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh.
The averments in the plaint were that the plaintiff appellant M s Subbagya 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, toothpastes, tooth powder, toothbrushes, mosquito repellents, cleaning powders, toilet fresheners etc.
On these and other allegations the appellants sought a declaration of the appellants lien to the extent of Rs 15,80,861.85 over the goods of the respondent lying with the appellants for a further declaration that the purported termination was illegal and that the respondent may be restrained from interfering in the appellants alleged right to dispose of the stocks.
Upon hearing both the parties, the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Chandigarh, by his order dated 29 4 1989 made the interim order absolute.
3209 of 1992.
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.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALIAH, C.J. Civil Appeal No.
Indeed, the appellants did number dispute the liability of the suit for such dismissal on the ground of number registration of the partnership.
under terms of an agreement said to be executed on 1 4 1985 stipulating a companymission at the rate of 1.5 up to a turnover of Rs 2 crores and 1 in respect of turnover in excess thereof.
1582 of 1993.
There was a further order by the Division e Bench which declined to entertain fresh and further arguments in the appeal which were sought by the present appellants by means of CM No.
On 27 3 1989, the appellants instituted Civil Suit No.
That order is assailed in Civil Appeal No.
The appeals raise a short and interesting question as to the scope of restitutionary jurisdiction of the companyrts.
1581 of 1993 arises out of and is directed against the appellate judgment of the Division Bench dated 29 1 1992 of the High Court of Delhi dismissing RFS OS No.
