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

2010 Supreme(Ori) 842

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
R.N. Biswal, J.
LUBNA KHAN - APPELLANT
Versus
DR. AKHTAR HUSSAIN KHAN - RESPONDENT
ARBA No. 10 of 2009
Decided On : 13-04-2010

The presumptive value of a registered partnership deed and the requirement for a prima facie case in seeking interim relief under Section-9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Headnote:

The appellant, a partner in a Nursing Home, filed a petition under Section-9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking appointment of a Commissioner to inventory the assets and an injunction to prevent the respondent from disposing of the assets. The Court below rejected the petition, disbelieving the reconstitution of the partnership firm and the registration of the partnership deed. The appellant appealed, arguing that the partnership deed had presumptive value as it was registered. The Court held that the presumption was rebuttable, but the appellant had a prima facie case. The Court allowed the appeal in part, directing the appointment of a Commissioner to inventory the assets and prohibiting the respondent from disposing of the assets until the matter is decided by the Arbitrator or competent civil Court.

JUDGMENT :

R.N. Biswal, J. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 7.4.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack in ARBP No. 41 of 2009 rejecting the petition filed under Section-9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by the appellant.

2. The appellant was the petitioner and the respondent was the opp. party in the Court below. As per the case of the petitioner, they married in the year, 1988. Both of them belong to Hanafi School of Muslim law. After the marriage, they left for Riyadh, where opp. party pursued higher study, while the petitioner was working and supporting the family. As the opp. party could not complete the course, the couple decided to return India and run the Nursing Home after the name "M/s. Janasevak Clinic and Nursing Home" established by the father of the opp. party. On return to India, they found that the Nursing Home was in shambles. So, the petitioner invested all her savings and earned from Riyadh. Her father also contributed cash of about Rs. 4,00,000/-for payment towards arrear electricity bill and debts incurred by the Nursing Home. At the time of partnership business, consisting of the partners-Smt. Noorjahan Begum, Dr. Tabasum Begum, the mother and sister of the opp. party respectively and the opp. party himself, the aforesaid Nursing Home sustained loss as they were incapable of managing the partnership business. So, it was decided that the partnership would be reconstituted. Accordingly, Noorjahan Begum and Dr. Tabasum Begum retired from partnership business and the partnership was reconstituted with the petitioner and the opp.party as equal partners. It was decided that in the reconstitution partnership, the petitioner shall be responsible for the maintenance of accounts and administration of the business while the opp. party would look after the treatment side. The partnership firm was duly registered. After the petitioner took over the management and administration of the partnership business, she plugged the loopholes to prevent the leakage of the business fund. Due to her hard labour and efficient management, the income of the Nursing Home increased manifold. When the income increased, opp. party developed a lavish life style and played ducks and drakes with the partnership money. He quarreled with his mother and sister, but at the intervention of the close relatives of the petitioner, the differences between them were amicably settled. Thereafter, the opp.party and his mother started torturing the petitioner in many a way. Once the opp. party locked the petitioner and a sweeper of the Nursing Home in one room for more than 8 hours. In another occasion, he called upon the pharmacist of the Nursing Home to bring kerosene, so that he would set fire on the room in which the petitioner was staying.

3. In January, 2008 since the father of the petitioner fell ill, she took him to Hyderabad for immediate medical intervention and when she returned from Hyderabad she was prevented from entering into the Nursing Home, for which she was compelled to return to her father's house, at Cuttack. Shortly thereafter, the petitioner was served with Talakanama annulling her marriage with the opp.party. The petitioner requested the opp. party in several occasion to give her share in the partnership business, but in vain. On 21.3.2009, the petitioner got reliable information that opp. party was going to dispose of all the assets of the partnership business and siphoning away all the profits of the partnership business. Since the partnership deed provides for settlement of disputes between the partners through arbitration and the petitioner was taking steps for seeking appointment of an arbitrator, she filed an application under Section-9 of the Act before the District Judge, Cuttack which was registered as ARBP No. 41 of 2009, with prayer to appoint a Commissioner to make complete inventory of all assets of M/s. Janasevak Clinic & Nursing Home


















































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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top