Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: N. M. No.4764 of 2019 -: 1 :- C. S. No.545 of 2021
MHCC010130232019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MAZGAON, BOMBAY
ORDER IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4764 of 2019
IN
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.545 OF 2021
(OLD S. C. SUIT NO.2899 OF 2019)
Suresh Dhanraj Mehta. … Plaintiff.
V/s.
M/s. Vaibhav Metals & Anr. … Defendants.
CORAM: HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI A. S. KAZI
(COURT ROOM NO.14)
DATE : 12.02.2025.
-: Appearances: -
Adv. Sanket Mungale a/w. Adv. Swapna Khemlapure for the plaintiff.
Adv. Vaibhav Ghogare a/w. Adv. Krutika Joshi for the defendant.
ORAL ORDER
1) Heard both sides through their respective advocates.
2) In view of the above, the following points arise for
determination before me and I record my findings thereon for the
reasons enumerated hereinafter;
-- 1 of 18 --
N. M. No.4764 of 2019 -: 2 :- C. S. No.545 of 2021
Sr. No. Points Findings
1. Whether the notice of motion,
deserves to be allowed?
In the Negative.
2. What Order? As per final order.
REASONS
As to point no.1:
3) At the outset, it needs to be mentioned here that apart from
the oral arguments advanced before the court, Ld. Advocate for the
plaintiff and the defendant No.2 also submitted their written
submissions which are taken into account while deciding the above
notice of motion. The suit is for dissolution of partnership firm i.e.
defendant No.1 and also for seeking directions against defendant no.2
to render true and faithful accounts relating to the affairs of the
defendant No.1 firm.
4) In support of the above notice of motion, the Ld. Advocate for the
plaintiff made the following submissions:-
a) Originally in the year 1986, the plaintiff and defendant No.2 started
the business of selling non-ferrous metal and scrap by forming
defendant No.1. Accordingly, a Deed of Partnership dated 15.04.1986
was also executed between the parties stating various terms and
conditions. As per Deed, the profit and loss sharing between the
plaintiff and the defendant No.2 was 10 : 89 respectively and 1% was
for charity. The duration of the said firm is a Partnership at Will.
b) In the year 1989, the plaintiff and the defendant No.2, executed an
Addendum to Partnership Deed dated 01.04.1989. By way of said
Addendum (Clause 1 thereof) the profit and loss sharing between the
-- 2 of 18 --
N. M. No.4764 of 2019 -: 3 :- C. S. No.545 of 2021
plaintiff and the defendant No.2 was changed to 40 : 59 respectively
and 1% for charity. Rest of the terms continued to be as per original
Deed dated 05.04.1986.
c) In the year, 1990, the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 executed
another Addendum to Deed of Partnership dated 01.11.1990, whereby
the place of the business of the defendant No.1 was decided to 44,
Taibai Niwas, 1st Carpenter Street, CP Tank, Mumbai 400 004.
d) In the year 1993, a Supplementary Deed of Partnership dated
18.03.1993 was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant No.2,
in view of the amendment in the Income Tax Act 1961, at the time to
add the terms with respect to the remuneration to the working partner
and interest to the partners.
e) It is submitted that, since 01.04.1989 till date the profit and loss
sharing between the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 has been 40 : 59
respectively and 1% for charity. It is further stated that, since there was
no business carried on from 2009-10, the last audited balance sheet of
the defendant No.1 was for the year 2009-10. The same has been duly
admitted by the defendant No.2. Even as per the said last audited
balance of defendant No.1, the profit and loss sharing between the
plaintiff and the defendant No.2 is 40:59 respectively.
f) It is further submitted that, even as per the income tax returns of the
defendant No.1 produced by the plaintiff for the assessment years 2007-
08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, it can be clearly seen that, the
percentage of shares between the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 has
been 40 : 59 respectively.
g) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is absolutely clear
beyond any doubts that the profit and loss sharing between the plaintiff
and the defendant No.2 is 40 : 59 respectively. However, the defendant
-- 3 of 18 --
N. M. No.4764 of 2019 -: 4 :- C. S. No.545 of 2021
No.2 with malafide and dishonest intention has denied the said profit
and loss sharing of 40 : 59 and he is claiming that the profit and loss
sharing is 10 : 89. The dishonesty of the defendant No.2 can be seen as
there contradictory to last audited balance sheet (Exhibit-E) and Income
Tax Returns of the defendant No.1 (Exhibit-F Colly).
Submissions by Plaintiff on Non Dissolution of Defendant No.1 Firm:-
a) It is submitted that, by bare perusal of the last audited balance sheet,
it can be clearly seen that, the accounts were not drawn for the purpose
of dissolution of the firm in its entirety. It can be clearly seen that,
admittedly the defendant No.2 is liable to pay the firm a total sum of
Rs.38,36,351.95/- along with the interest accrued till date and the
plaintiff is liable to pay the firm a total sum of Rs.1,22,223.06/- along
with the interest accrued till date.
b) It is further submitted that, even the bank accounts of the firm are
not closed by dissolving the firm.
5) It is submitted that the wrong submission is made on behalf of
the advocate for defendant No.2 by pointing out page no.47 of the
plaint that the monies has been transferred by both the partners to the
respective sole proprietary firms i.e. defendant No.2 transfer sum of
Rs.26,79,492.07/- to Vaibhav Metals and the plaintiff transferred sum of
Rs.30,48,863.29/- to Vivek Enterprise. However, it is submitted that,
this is not correct because the carried forward balance by both the
partners clearly indicates that the defendant No.2 has overdrawn a sum
of Rs.38,36,351.95/- and the plaintiff has overdrawn a sum of
Rs.1,22,223.06/-. Therefore, the final accounts were not drawn thereby
dissolving the firm and false statement is made in para No.4 of the
-- 4 of 18 --
N. M. No.4764 of 2019 -: 5 :- C. S. No.545 of 2021
written statement of the defendant No.2 that the firm is dissolved in the
year 2010.
6) In short, it is contended that, if according to the defendant No.2
the firm is already dissolved, then how come such huge amount is still
overdrawn in the last audited balance sheet and what is preventing the
defendant No.2 from depositing the money overdrawn by him. On one
hand, according to the defendant No.2, the firm is dissolved and on the
other hand the defendant No.2 is contending that the partner is not
debtor of the firm and the partner cannot be directed to deposit until
the accounts are finally drawn and the firm is dissolved. Therefore, the
contention of the defendant No.2 are contradictory and mutually
destructive. Hence, it is submitted that, the plaintiff is seeking direction
for depositing the overdrawn amount in the court to prevent any
misused and waste of the assets and the properties of the firm. If
surplus money can be distributed between the partners after the
accounts are finally settled.
7) It is submitted that, there were two bank accounts i.e. 1)
Overdraft Account No.06262790000063, HDFC Bank Ltd, Null Bazar
Branch, Mumbai and 2) Current Account No.002011100002946 (Old
No.2946), Sahebrao Deshmukh Co-Operative Bank Ltd., C. P. Tank
Branch, Mumbai. It is submitted that the Current Account
No.002011100002946 (Old No.2946), Sahebrao Deshmuk Co-Operative
Bank Ltd., C. P. Tank Branch, Mumbai is still active and not closed.
However, the Current Account No.06262790000063, HDFC Bank Ltd,
Null Bazar Branch, Mumbai was closed in the year 2011. It is submitted
that, the defendant No.2 had illegally, without information, knowledge
-- 5 of 18 --
N. M. No.4764 of 2019 -: 6 :- C. S. No.545 of 2021
and consent of the plaintiff withdrawn / transferred to the bank account
of the defendant No.2 a total sum of Rs.8,23,333/- from the bank
accounts of the defendant No.1 as described in para no.23 of the
written submission.
8) It is further submitted that, the Court Receiver is required to
be appointed in the facts and circumstances of the matter because the
firm is not doing any business since the year 2009-10 and there is huge
overdrawn money to be paid to the firm by defendant No.2. The
defendant No.2 was required to make payment to the plaintiff which
can be seen from each and every settlement terms including Exh.1 and
2 of the written statement. But defendant No.2 every time backed out
form his liability. Hence, the Court Receiver may kindly be appointed by
allowing the notice of motion.
The Advocate for plaintiff has placed his reliance on the
judgment in the case of
Iqbalnath Premnath Anand V/s.
Remeshwarnath Premnath Anand and Anr, 1976 SCC OnLine Bom 68.
9) Per-Contra, the Ld. Advocate for the defendant No.2 opposed
the Notice of Motion by filling written submissions and submits as
under:-
a) It is an admitted position that, the partnership had stopped their
business in the year 2009 due to disputes between the parties.
b) The defendant No.1 firm has also filed its Tax Audit Report for the
Financial Year 2009-10. Under the Balance Sheet for Financial Year
2009-10 part of the Tax Audit Report, as per the partner capital
account, the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 had transferred the stock
from the defendant No.1 firm of their respective proprietary businesses.
-- 6 of 18 --
N. M. No.4764 of 2019 -: 7 :- C. S. No.545 of 2021
Further, on perusal of the partners capital account of the defendant
No.2 the stock was transferred to Vaibhav Metal (Proprietary of the
defendant No.2) and similarly, the remaining stock was transferred to
Vivek Enterprise, (Proprietary of the plaintiff). As per the said balance
sheet as on 31.03.2010, the stock of defendant No.1 firm was nullified
by transferring the same to the plaintiff and the defendant No.2. On
perusal of the said Balance Sheet, it is an admitted position that, in
Financial Year 2009-10, the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 had
respectively started the individual businesses by transferring stocks and
goods of the defendant No.1 firm to their respective proprietary firms.
c) Similarly, as the disputes increased between the plaintiff and
defendant No.2, various family meetings had been arranged to settle
the same, as both the parties were brothers.
d) It is an admitted fact that on 15.11.2009, as the plaintiff and the
defendant No.2 had completely stopped conducting the partnership
business due to disputes arising with respect to their joint properties,
with the intervention of the elder brother Mr. Gehrilal Mehta of the
plaintiff and defendant No.2 an understanding was recorded between
both the parties which included properties and assets of partnership
firm and joint family.
e) Thereafter, due to failure to comply with the said understanding,
dated15.11.2009, again with the intervention of Mr. Gehrilal Mehta, the
plaintiff and the defendant No.2 on 25.05.2010 recorded an
understanding which included properties and assets of partnership firm
and joint family. The fact is an admitted position.
f) As the partnership business was completely stopped between the both
partners, the overdraft A/c. No.06262790000063 was closed on
04.05.2011. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that, the plaintiff and the
-- 7 of 18 --
N. M. No.4764 of 2019 -: 8 :- C. S. No.545 of 2021
defendant No.2 were joint signatories of the said account. Also, Current
Account No.022011100002946 was operated jointly in Sahebrao
Deshmukh Co-operative Bank Ltd. As per the personal knowledge of the
defendant no.2, the said Current Account is dormant and lately the said
Co-operative Bank merged with Cosmos Co-operative Bank.
g) As the disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 were
unresolved, both the parties had completely stopped doing the
partnership business and were individually carrying out their
proprietary business from the financial year 2009-10. Further, as per the
Tax Audited Report for the Financial Year 2009-10, the plaintiff was
carrying out proprietary business in the name of Vivek Enterprise from
1st Floor and Defendant No.2 was carrying out proprietary business in
the name of Vaibhav Metals from Ground Floor of Taibai Niwal,
Building No.44, 1st Carpenter Street, C. P. Tank, Mumbai 400 004.
h) Thereafter, again on 15.06.2017, the plaintiff and the defendant
No.2 reached and recorded an understanding which was witnessed by
various family members. The said understanding was a full and final
settlement between the plaintiff and the defendant No.2.
10) It is further submitted on behalf of the defendant that, after
gap of 10 years by letter dated 07.03.2019, the plaintiff issued a notice
to defendant No.2 contending that, the partnership firm was carrying
on business from the ground floor which was stopped in the year 2009
and thereafter, the parties started independent business and that,
defendant No.2 requested the plaintiff to allow him to carry on business
from the ground floor premises, as he was facing difficulties to find a
new place. But by reply dated 28.03.2019, the defendant No.2 informed
to the plaintiff that, by mutual agreement ground floor of the building
-- 8 of 18 --
N. M. No.4764 of 2019 -: 9 :- C. S. No.545 of 2021
was given to him in notional division of the property while first floor
was allotted to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a suit bearing
(L) No.582 of 2019 before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court for partition.
11) It is further submitted on behalf of the defendant that, the
appointment of Court Receiver is a drastic remedy and unless strong
prima-facie cases made out, the Court will not appoint the same. In the
present matter, such a case is not made out, because of the following
reasons:-
a) It is an admitted fact that, the defendant No.1firm had stopped
carrying its business in the year 2009.
b) Plaintiff and defendant no.2 were carrying out their independent
businesses as proprietary firms. As per Tax Audit Report for the financial
year 2009-10, the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 had transferred
stocks appropriately to their proprietary firms.
c) The plaintiff and the defendant No.2 were jointly managing the bank
account of which one is closed and the second bank account is a
dormant account.
d) Also as admitted by the plaintiff as the partnership business was
stopped in the financial year 2009-10, there were no books of accounts
drawn of the defendant No.1 partnership firm thereafter.
e) Further, as both the bank accounts are closed and dormant, there are
no cheque books, slip book, bank pass books, bank statements available
with the defendant No.2.
f) Without prejudice it is respectively submitted that, as the plaintiff was
a joint account holder of both the bank accounts of the defendant No.1
firm, it can very well apply to the respective banks for any information
relating to defendant No.1 firm.
-- 9 of 18 --
N. M. No.4764 of 2019 -: 10 :- C. S. No.545 of 2021
g) Moreover, at present a period of 14 years, it is respectively submitted
that, there are no assets i.e. movable and immovable of the defendant
No.1 firm, and the plaintiff has failed to plead and identify the assets of
the defendant no.1 firm, which is being wasted or under occupation of
defendant No.2, which needs protection.
12) So far as, the order of temporary injunction restraining the
defendant No.2 from operating the bank accounts of the defendant No.1
is concerned, it is submitted that, the bank account of the defendant
No.1 firm in HDFC Bank, Null Bazar Branch, Mumbai bearing overdraft
Account No.0626270000063 has been closed on 04th May 2011,
wherein the plaintiff was also joint account holder. Same is the case
with bank account of defendant No.1 firm held in Sahebrao Deshmukh
Co-operative bank Ltd. It was Current Account No.022011100002946
and it became dormant. So the defendant No.2 was not aware of the
status of said account. Temporary Injunction cannot be grated against
closed and dormant accounts.
13) So far as, the Order of the Temporary Injunction restraining
the defendant No.2 from the using name of the defendant No.1 firm
and goodwill of the firm is concerned, the following submissions are
made on behalf of the defendant No.1:-
a) As per the Balance Sheet for Financial Year 2009-10, it is an admitted
position that, the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 have categorically
transferred the stock/ goods of the defendant No.1 firm respectfully to
their proprietary firms. The said proprietary firm of the plaintiff is
described as Vivek Enterprise and the proprietary firm of the defendant
No.2 is described as Vaibhav Metals.
-- 10 of 18 --
N. M. No.4764 of 2019 -: 11 :- C. S. No.545 of 2021
b) Further, as admitted after the stopping of partnership firm business
in the year 2009, thereafter the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 started
independent businesses as proprietary firms. It is respectfully submitted
that, as per mutually agreed, the defendant No.2 was allowed to run his
proprietary business in the same name of the defendant No.1 firm.
c) It is respectfully submitted that, waiver is an international
relinquishment of right. It involves conscious abandonment of an
existing legal right, advantage, benefit, claim or privilege. It is an
agreement not to assert a right. Whereas, acquiescence would be a
conduct where a party is sitting by, when another is invading his right.
The acquiescence must be such as to lead to the inference of license
sufficient to create a new right in the defendant.
d) From the aforesaid, from the year 2009, the plaintiff allowed the
defendant No.2 to carry on the proprietary business in the same name
as that of defendant No.1 firm. From the year 2009, till the year 2019,
the plaintiff had not raised any issue or disputes of the defendant No.2
carrying out the proprietary business in the same name as that of the
defendant No.1 firm, which prima-facie establishes that the plaintiff had
waived and / or Acquiescence to the said usage of name.
14) So far as the reliefs of the directions to deposit sum of
Rs.97,61,487.03/- is concerned, it is submitted on behalf of the
defendant No.2 that, such a relief cannot be granted as in a suit for
dissolution of partnership, till the accounts are settled the partners of
the firm cannot be said to be the debtors of the firm. Further, it cannot
also be said that, the monies standing as a debt balance in partners’
capital account is a debt due to the firm which the receiver is entitled to
recover. Similarly, in the matter of
Jayesh H. Pandya V/s. Sukhanya
-- 11 of 18 --
N. M. No.4764 of 2019 -: 12 :- C. S. No.545 of 2021
Holdings Pvt. Ltd., the Hon’ble Bombay High Court rejecting an
application seeking a direction which are due and payable to the
partnership firm, held that, the partner is not a debtor or creditor of co-
partners and in law, he cannot be either a debtor or creditor of the firm
of which he is a partner.
15) It is also submitted that, the relief sought by the plaintiff is
liable to be rejected on the ground of laches because, for about 9 to 10
years, the plaintiff failed to take any objection or disputes regarding the
defendant No.2 carrying on the business of his proprietary firm in the
same name as defendant No.1 firm. Hence, in view of the ratio laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Gattulal V/s. Gulab
Singh and Anr.,(1985) SCC 432. The reliefs cannot be granted due to
latches on the part of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has voluntarily and
intentionally waived and acquiesced his rights in using the name of the
defendant No.1 firm without raising any action against the defendant
No.2 for about 10 years. The defendant No.1 had no goodwill as the
firm stopped its business for more than 14 years. Hence, it is submitted
that, the defendant No.2 is carrying on his proprietary business since 14
years in the same name as defendant No.1 firm with the separate Sales
Tax number and separate GST Number. Hence, the notice of motion
seeking interim reliefs may kindly be rejected with costs.
In support his submissions, the advocate for defendant No.2
has place his reliance on the following authorities such as:-
a)
Umashankar Bajaj V/s. Narain Das, MANU/BH/0081/1983;
b)
Jayesh H. Pandya V/s. Sukhanya Holding Pvt. Ltd., 2002 (4) Mh.L.J.
378; c)
Galada Power and Telecommunication V/s. United India
Assurance Company Limited; (2026) 14 SCC 161;
d)
Union of India & Ors. V/s. N. Murugesan & Ors. (2022) 2 SCC 25;
-- 12 of 18 --
N. M. No.4764 of 2019 -: 13 :- C. S. No.545 of 2021
e)
Gattu Lal V/s. Gulab Singh & Anr., (1985) SCC 432 and f)
CIT
Bangalore V/s. B. C. Srinivasa Setty: (1981) 2 SCC 460.
16) After hearing the parties at length, first of all, I turn to
the relief of appointment of Court Receiver sought by the plaintiff in the
above notice of motion. It is rightly submitted on behalf of the
defendant No.2 that, the appointment of a Court Receiver is a drastic
remedy which can only be granted if, there is some special equity in
favour of the plaintiff and if he makes out a strong prima-facie case
against the opposite party that he has a fair chance of success in the
suit. In the case of
Umashankar Bajaj V/s. Narain Das,
MANU/BH/0081/1983 (Para 8), that, if there is manifest peril to the
suit property, then only the court will be inclined to prevent it by
putting a receiver in-charge of the same.
17) Now, in the present case, prima-facie and as per the
submissions of the defendant No.2, the plaintiff has not made out a
special case for appointment of the Court Receiver for the following
reasons:-
a) It is an admitted fact that, the defendant No.1firm had stopped
carrying its business in the year 2009.
b) Plaintiff and defendant no.2 were carrying out their independent
businesses as proprietary firms. As per Tax Audit Report for the financial
year 2009-10, the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 had transferred
stocks appropriately to their proprietary firms.
c) The plaintiff and the defendant No.2 were jointly managing the bank
account of which one is closed and the second bank account is a
dormant account.
-- 13 of 18 --
N. M. No.4764 of 2019 -: 14 :- C. S. No.545 of 2021
d) Also as admitted by the plaintiff as the partnership business was
stopped in the financial year 2009-10, there were no books of accounts
drawn of the defendant No.1 partnership firm thereafter.
e) Further, as both the bank accounts are closed and dormant, there are
no cheque books, slip book, bank pass books, bank statements available
with the defendant No.2.
f) Without prejudice it is respectively submitted that, as the plaintiff was
a joint account holder of both the bank accounts of the defendant No.1
firm, it can very well apply to the respective banks for any information
relating to defendant No.1 firm.
g) Moreover, at present a period of 14 years, it is respectively submitted
that, there are no assets i.e. movable and immovable of the defendant
No.1 firm, and the plaintiff has failed to plead and identify the assets of
the defendant no.1 firm, which is being wasted or under occupation of
defendant No.2, which needs protection.
18) Hence, the above suit is filed after period of 10 years from
the date of the disputes and it will not be proper to consider
appointment of the Court Receiver after a lapse of 14 years today.
Especially when, the plaintiff has failed to point out and plead what are
the assets of the defendant No.1 firm, which are being wasted and are
under the occupation of defendant No.2, which need protection.
Therefore, I am not inclined to grant the said relief.
19) Secondly, the plaintiff had sought the relief of temporary
injunction restraining to the defendant No.2 from operating the bank
account of defendant No.1 firm. However, it is pointed out by the
defendant No.2 that, the bank account of the defendant No.1 firm in
-- 14 of 18 --
N. M. No.4764 of 2019 -: 15 :- C. S. No.545 of 2021
HDFC Bank, Null Bazar Branch, Mumbai bearing overdraft Account
No.0626270000063 has been closed on 04th May 2011, wherein the
plaintiff was also joint account holder. Same is the case with bank
account of defendant No.1 firm held in Sahebrao Deshmukh Co-
operative bank Ltd. It was Current Account No.022011100002946 and
it became dormant. So the defendant No.2 was not aware of the status
of said account. Temporary Injunction cannot be grated against closed
and dormant accounts. Nothing is brought on record to the contrary by
the plaintiff to show that the said submissions of the defendant No.2 is
wrong. Hence, I am not inclined to grant the said prayer.
20) Thirdly, the plaintiff has sought a temporary injunction to
restrain the defendant No.2 from using the name and goodwill of the
defendant No.1 while conducting his business. Again, the relief sought
by the plaintiff is liable to be rejected on the ground of laches because,
for about 9 to 10 years, the plaintiff failed to take any objection or
disputes regarding the defendant No.2 carrying on the business of his
proprietary firm in the same name as defendant No.1 firm. Hence, in
view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Gattulal V/s. Gulab Singh and Anr.,(1985) SCC 432., the reliefs cannot
be granted due to latches on the part of the plaintiff and the plaintiff
has voluntarily and intentionally waived and acquiesced his rights in
using the name of the defendant No.1 firm without raising any action
against the defendant No.2 for about 10 years. Moreover, it is rightly
submitted on behalf of the defendant No.2 that, the defendant No.1 had
no goodwill as the firm stopped its business for more than 14 years as
on today. The defendant No.2 appears to be carrying on the said
business in the name as defendant No.1 firm with the separate Sales Tax
-- 15 of 18 --
N. M. No.4764 of 2019 -: 16 :- C. S. No.545 of 2021
number and separate GST Number since past about 14 years after
stopping the partnership business in the year 2009. Hence, the said
relief, in my opinion, cannot be granted now without demonstrating a
prima-facie case of irreparable injury to the plaintiff. Hence, I am not
inclined to grant the said relief.
21) Now, turning to the fourth relief prayed for in the above notice of
motion, by this relief the plaintiff has prayed for a direction to the
defendant No.2 to deposit a sum of Rs.97,61,487.03/- in the Court or
with the Court Receiver as may be appointed by this Court. The plaintiff
has made the said claim by making the calculations in para No.17 of the
plaint and contended that, the defendant No.2 owes and amount of
Rs.46,59,684.30/- to the defendant no.1 along-with interest of
Rs.51,01,803/- being calculated at the rate of 12% p. a. on said sum.
22) However, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case between
Jayesh H. Pandya V/s. Sukhanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2002
(4) Mh.LJ. (Page No.378) has highlighted the position very clearly and
was pleased to observe that a partner is not a debtor or creditor of co-
partners and in law, he cannot be either a debtor or creditor of the firm
of which he is partner and pending the decision of the suit, it cannot
therefore be said that, the plaintiff or the defendant No.2 are the
debtors of the firm. It was further pleased to hold that, the dues can
only be settled if any, at the stage of final settlement of accounts and till
then plaintiff and defendant No.2 cannot be said to be debtor of the
firm. Hence, it is rightly argued on behalf of the defendant No.2 that, at
this stage such a direction cannot be granted by way of interim relief. In
my opinion, the liability therefore, can only be fastened after adducing
-- 16 of 18 --
N. M. No.4764 of 2019 -: 17 :- C. S. No.545 of 2021
of evidence on merits. Hence, I am not inclined grant the said relief
also.
23) So on a conspectus, of the above discussion, I hold that the
plaintiff failed to make out a prima-facie case in his favour for grant of
the above reliefs. Naturally, therefore, the balance of convenience tilts in
favour of the defendant No.2 at this stage due to the latches in filing the
above suit and due to the nature of reliefs prayed for. Consequently,
irreparable loss will result to the defendant No.2, if the interim reliefs
are granted. Therefore, I answer point No.1 in the negative and proceed
to pass the following order:-
ORDER
1) Notice of Motion No.4764 of 2019 stands dismissed.
2) No order as to costs.
3) Notice of Motion No.4764 of 2019 stands disposed off accordingly.
(A. S. KAZI)
Addl. Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date:.12.02.2025. Mazgaon, Gr. Mumbai
(C. R. No.14).
Direct Typed on : 12.02.2025.
Signed on : 12.02.2025.
-- 17 of 18 --
N. M. No.4764 of 2019 -: 18 :- C. S. No.545 of 2021
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE: 12.02.2025. NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
TIME: 04.00 p.m. Mr. Ashok Sudhakar Patil
Name of the Judge (With Court
room no.)
HHJ Shri A. S. Kazi
(Court Room No.14)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGEMENT/ORDER
12.02.2025.
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P. O.
on
12.02.2025.
JUDGEMENT/ORDER uploaded on 12.02.2025.
-- 18 of 18 --