JUDGMENT - GAVAI B.R., J.:-By way of present petition, the petitioner impugnes the order dated 11th September, 2003 below Exh. 16 in Regular Civil Suit No. 806 of 2003, passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, thereby allowing the application filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under section 9-A of the C.P.C. and held that the Court fee payable on the said suit was payable under Item No. 7 of Schedule 1 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred as the said Act) and not under section 6(iv)(j) of the said Act.

The facts, in brief, out of which the present petition arises are as under:

That, the petitioner herein in partnership with the defendant No. 1 was carrying out the partnership business in the name of M/s. P.G. Pharma. The said firm was carrying on the business of carrying and forwarding agency. The said firm was engaged by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, herein the original defendants No. 2 and 3 as its carrying and forwarding agents.

3. It appears that since there was some dispute between the petitioner-plaintiff and the respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 with relation to certain business transaction, it was agreed between them that they would dissolve the partnership. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 therefore, entered into Memorandum of Understanding dated 7th April, 2003. The relevant term, for the adjudication of the present matter in the said Memorandum of understanding reads as under :

"Mr. Sunil Poshattiwar agrees not to have similar business dealings directly or indirectly with the above parties in his personal name or in the name of any concern in which he or his family members are interested till at the deposits and receivables recovered from these companies by P.G. Pharma and the account of Mr. Vinod Gannu is settled.

That amount paid to M/s. S.P. Pharma as deposit by Mr. Vinod Gannu to be returned to Mr. Vinod Gannu from the funds of M/s. P.G. Pharma. As and when M/s. S.P. Pharma gives the deposit to P.G. Pharma, the amount will be shared by the partners viz. Mr. Sunil and Mr. Vinod Gannu as per agreement. Mr. Sunil Poshattiwar agrees to fight the existing case for recovery of dues from M/s. S.P. Pharama."

4. It is the allegation of the petitioner that in contravention of these terms, the respondent No. 1 herein addressed a letter to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, stating therein, that an amount of rupees ten lacs which was deposited by the said M/s. P.G. Pharma, be treated as deposit by Dhanlaxmi Agency. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the said amount of rupees ten lacs was paid by the petitioner, as the petitioner was financing partner. The petitioner, therefore, submits that, by playing a fraud, the respondent No. 1 got transferred the said amount and continued the business with respondent Nos. 2 and 3, in utter violation of Memorandum of understanding dated 7th April, 2003.

5. The petitioner, therefore, filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 806 of 2003 for declaration and permanent injunction.

6. The main prayer in the said suit reads as under :

"To declare that the defendant No. 1 is not entitled to carry out C F agency business of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 which were being carried out by M/s. P.G. Pharma of which plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are partners, either in the name of defendant No. 1 or in any other name or in the name of M/s. Dhanlaxmi Medicaments of which he is the sole proprietor or in any other name in which defendant No. 1 or any member of his family is interested, to carry out C and F agency business of defendants 2 and 3 until entire accounts of firm M/s. P.F. Pharma are settled amongst its both the partners i.e. plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are the partners i.e. plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are settled and defendant No. 1 is discharged from his liability by making entire payments due against defendant No. 1 are made by him."

Almost a similar prayer is made in prayer Clause (ii), thereby seeking a permanent injunction against the respondent No. 1 fr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document