SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Del) 68

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
A.K. PATHAK, J.
COL. KALYAN SINGH (RETIRED) - Plaintiff
Versus
M/S WIMPY INTERNATIONAL LTD. ORS. - Defendants
CS(OS) 1432/2004
Decided on: 9th January, 2012

Advocates Appeared:
For the Plaintiff: Mr. M.M. Kalra and Mr. Kunal Kalra, Advs.
For the Defendants: Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sandeep Mittal, Ms. Deepali Sharma, Mr. Akhil Sachar and Mr. Manav Gupta, Advs. Mr. Subhash Oberoi, Adv. for Defendants. Applicant in I.A. No. 3457/2008

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 - Interim injunction - Property of partnership firm - Dissolution of partnership firm in 1994 whereby rights and liabilities of the firm vested in one partner - Suit claiming declaration of ownership of property filed by the ousted partner in the year 2004 - No prima facie case made out - Interim injunction vacated.

JUDGMENT

A.K. PATHAK, J.

I.A. No. 8456/2004 (u/O 39 R 1 & 2 r/w Sec. 151 CPC), I.A. No. 1121/2005 (u/O 39 R 4 r/w Sec. 151 CPC by Defendant nos. 1 & 2) and I.A. No. 2963/2005 (u/O 39 R 4 r/w Sec. 151 CPC by Defendant no. 5)

1. Plaintiff (since deceased and now being represented through his Legal Representatives) has filed this suit for declaration and injunction praying therein that the agreement dated 1st December, 1988 executed between the plaintiff, Captain H.S. Bajaj, Shri N.K. Duggal and M/s Goodwill Foods (P) Ltd. as also the dissolution deed, partnership deed, power of attorney and other documents be declared as null and void; that the defendant nos. 1 to 3 and 5 be restrained from selling, alienating, parting with possession or creating any third party interest in respect of property bearing no. 245, Udyog Vihar, Dhoondahera, Gurgaon, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”). It has been further prayed that the defendant no. 4 be restrained from giving permission for transfer/sale of the suit property to a third person through defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3.

2. Along with the suit, I.A. No. 8456/2004 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has been filed praying therein that the defendants be restrained from alienating, parting with possession or creating any third party interest or causing any loss to the plaintiff in respect of the suit property till disposal of the suit. Vide order dated 15th December, 2004 defendants were restrained from creating any third party interest in respect of the suit property.

3. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 have filed I.A. No. 1121/2005 for vacation of the ad interim injunction order. Defendant no. 5 has also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC being I.A. No. 2963/2005 seeking vacation of the injunction order qua the defendant no. 5 on the ground that it has no interest in the suit property.

4. By this order I shall dispose of all the above referred applications.

5. Case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint, in brief, is that the plaintiff along with Capt. H.S. Bajaj (retd.) and Shri. N.K. Duggal, was carrying on partnership business under the name and style of M/s Freezo Freezing Complex in terms of partnership deed dated 28th August 1979. Plaintiff and Capt. H.S. Bajaj being retired Army officers had applied for allotment of an industrial plot at Dhoondahera under the scheme of Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (defendant no. 4). Vide allotment letter dated 12th December, 1979, defendant no. 4 allotted the suit property in the name of plaintiff and Capt. H.S. Bajaj. Sale deed was executed by defendant no. 4 in favour of the plaintiff and Capt. H.S. Bajaj. Stamp duty of Rs.66,750/- was paid by the plaintiff and certificate in this regard was issued by the Registrar’s Office. Plaintiff and his partners took medium term loan facility from defendant no. 5 in the name of the partnership firm for raising construction on the suit property as also for purchasing and installing plant and machinery. Suit property was mortgaged with the defendant no.5 to secure the loan. After completion of construction, plaintiff let out the suit property to M/s I. Ahmad & Company. During the 1984 riots, suit property was badly damaged as a consequence whereof, tenant fled away. Plaintiff was unable to repay the loan due to the losses suffered by the firm.

6. Plaintiff was also working as Chief Executive of M/s Wimpy India Ltd., M/s Wimpy Fast Foods Pvt. Ltd and M/s Wimpy Foods Pvt. Ltd, which companies were later on sold to defendant no.2 and one Mr. Keval Singh Sandhu. M/s Goodwill Foods (P) Ltd. was incorporated in the year 1985, of which plaintiff became the Executive Director. Thereafter, plaintiff entered into a partnership business with defendant no.3 for carrying on the said business from the suit property on the assurance of M/s Goodwill Foods (P) Ltd. that it will clear the dues of the plaintiff firm. Accordingly, plain




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top