Plaintiff was a partner of a firm run under the name and style of M/s. Chaudhari and Company, 4 Civil Lines, Meerut. The firm existed prior to 31st Jan. 1984 with six partners under a partnership deed date 3rd April, 1982. At this place it may be pointed out that Mahendra Singh Chaudhary was a partner of the firm which is said to have been dissolved on 31st Jan. 1984 and he is also a partner of the firm said to have been constituted afresh on 1st Feb. 1984. The old partnership was dissolved on 31st Jan. 1984. With effect from 1st Feb. 1984 the above firm was reconstituted whereby two old partners retired and six new partners including the plaintiff were included into the partnership. The plaintiff was that M/s. Chaudhari and Company had entered into a contract with the State Government for construction of a canal and that the Executive Engineer Meerut Division, Ganga Canal, Meerut, defendant was the Engineer in charge, who was supervising the work of construction of the said canal. In connection with that contract payments were made by defendant to M/s. M.S. Chaudhary and Company.
The plaintiff was that after the new partnership came into being a power of attorney was executed by eight partners other than the plaintiff and Mahendra Singh Chaudhary whereunder payments to M/s. M. S. Chaudhary and Company were to be made jointly to the plaintiff and to Mahendra Singh Chaudhary. The plaintiff further was that the cheques which were being paid to Mahendra Singh Chaudhary alone were being misutilised by him. The plaintiff on account of cheques payable to M/s. M. S. Chaudhary and Company being paid to Mahendra Singh Chaudhary alone the interests of the newly constituted firm on Ist Feb. 1984 were being jeopardized. It was in order to safeguard the interest of this newly constituted firm that the suit for injunction was filed by the plaintiff. This first appeal from order has been filed by the defendants in a suit against an order passed by Meerut Court, issuing a temporary injunction as prayed for by plaintiff-respondent and the application for temporary injunction on which the order appealed against was passed was made therein.
The suit was barred by Section 69, Partnership Act, there are facts which are not disputed one of them being that the firm of which the plaintiff claims to be a partner and for the benefit of the suit for temporary injunction has been filed is unregistered. The other undisputed fact is that the plaintiff has no personal interest in the subject matter of the suit. The only interest he has claimed as a partner of the firm have been constituted on 1st Feb. 1984.
Allahabad High Court held that the order appealed against as mentioned above is set aside and the interim order of stay passed in the appeal is vacated. That being so the application for temporary injunction in which the order appealed against was passed was not maintainable and the order appealed against has to be set aside on this ground alone. This appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Post a Comment