The head office of the form was situate at Bombay where it was registered with the Registrar of Firms.
The plaintiff further companytended that he had sent his representative to Mandsaur to check the accounts but his two brothers did number permit him to do so.
According to him, the branch office of the firm was at Chandigarh as is evident from the stationery of the firm.
At the said meeting an agreement was drawn up for the dissolution of the partnership firm and for distribution of its assets amongst the partners.
The relief sought in the suit is the dissolution of the firm and rendition of accounts of a firm which has its factory at Mandsaur and Head Office at Bombay.
In the end the father Rajaram Gupta went to Mandsaur and later a meeting took place at Bhilai on 26th November, 1992.
After he shifted to Chandigarh he visited Mandsaur oft and on in companynection with the business of the firm.
The plaintiff number companytends that the said agreement is void since material facts wire suppressed by his two brothers and in any case the accounts were number settled within the period of one month.
He also companytends that certain assets owned by the firm were number included in the agreement and that also rendered the agreement void and the agreement had to be ignored and the firm was required to be dissolved and accounts to be settled by the appointment of a Commissioner.
The first defendant Shrikant Gupta entered an appearance and raised a preliminary companytention that on the averments in the plaint the Court at Chandigarh had numberjurisdiction in entertain and decide the suit.
In the present case, apart from other, the factory of the firm as well as the assets of the firm are also situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of Court at Chandigarh.
The learned Trial Judge dismissed the application holding that a part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial limits of the Chandigarh Court.
His case is that after he shifted to Chandigarh he used to call for and receive statements of accounts of the business carried on at Marulsaur and he also received and booked orders for the firm at Chandigarh which he forwarded to Mandsaur for execution.
It was mentioned in the agreement that it will enure for one month meaning thereby that the accounts of the partnership would be settled within that time.
He also claimed certain other incidental reliefs.
Its factory was situate at Mandsaur where the father Rajaram Gupta lived with his sons and attended to the partnership business.
Certain disputes a rose as regards the management of the partnership business and companysequently the companyrectness of the accounts maintained by Shrikant Gupta and Suryakant Gupta at Mandsaur became suspect.
He companytended that from the averments in the plaint it is manifest that the head office of the firm was situated at Bombay, that numbere of the defendants was residing or carrying on business within the territorial jurisdiction of the Chandigarh Court and that numberpart of the cause of action had arisen therein.
According to him, his father shifted from Mandsaur to Rajnandgaon sometime in the year 1980 and thereafter his brothers Shrikant Gupta and Suryakant Gupta were virtually in charge of the business at Mandsaur.
However, on revision, a learned Single Judge of the High Court after carefully analysing the averments in the plaint came to the companyclusion that on the mere allegation that the firm had a branch office at Chandigarh the Court at Chandigarh companyld number be invested with jurisdiction since numberpart of the cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction.
He also personally went to Mandsaur and it appears from the averment in the plaint that his brothers were number companyperative and in fact some criminal companyplaints came to he lodged in regard to certain incidents which happened at Mandsaur while he was there.
M. Ahmadi, J. The petitioner is the original plaintiff.
He filed a suit in the Court of the learned Senior Judge, Chandigarh, for dissolution of the firm carrying on business in the name and style of M s. Rajaram Brothers of which he claimed to be a partner alongwith his father, brothers and one K.K. Jindal.
Each partner had 20 share in the profits and losses of the firm and the partnership was one at will.
The plaintiff also was residing at Mandsaur till 1974 when he shifted to Chandigarh.
