1979 Supreme(MP) 273

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
J.P. Bajpai, J.
Yudhishtir Narayan Bhargava - Applicant
Vs.
Bharat Bhushan - Respondent
C. Revn. No. 655 of 1979 (I)
Decided On : 06-12-1979

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 40, R. 1 – defendant withdrawing huge amounts from the partnership firm and keeping the same in his personal accounts and thereafter advancing huge amounts to various persons – sufficient to appoint a receiver.

        Short Note

       1. It was not disputed that the plaintiff – non – applicants were the partners of the firm to the extent of 12 annas and the applicant – defendant was a share – holder to the extent of 25 paise. It is also not disputed that Yudhishtir Narayan Bhargava, the applicant had been looking after the actual management of the business of referiegeration which is being run at Indore. The major share – holders of the firm i. e. the plaintiffs and the other proforma defendants reside out of Indore. It was not disputed that the applicant – defendant did withdraw a sum of Rs. 75,000/ – from the accounts of the firm and deposited the said amount in his personal name in various Banks. Actually speaking this conduct of the applicant, coupled with other circumstances, gave rise to bitterness amongst the partners and as alleged by the plaintiffs, they had lost confidence in the applicant and, accordingly, they served a notice of termination of the agreement of partnership and instituted the present suit for the dissolution of the firm, accounts and distribution of assets. Since the business is still being run and the plaintiffs apprehend that if applicant Y.N. Bhargava is further allowed to manage the actual business he may cause further loss by misappropriating the assets of the firm, a request was made before the trial Court for a direction for appointment of a receiver. The trial Court made the order impugned holding that it was a fit case for appointment of a receiver.

       2. Held : After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that the order impugned had been made by the trial Court in exercise of its discretion. The undisputed circumstances disclosing the abnormal conduct on the part of the applicant in the matter of withdrawing huge amounts from the accounts of the partnership firm and keeping the same in his personal accounts and thereafter advancing huge amounts to various persons are sufficient to raise strong doubts and serious apprehension in the mind of the plaintiffs against the bonafides of the applicant. The plaintiffs and other proforma defendants who want to terminate the agreement of partnership hold 12 annas share. A notice of dissolution had already been served. Under these circumstances there was sufficient justification for taking such steps as may ensure the interests of the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants and protect the assets of the partnership firm from being misused or being mis – appropriated. The discretion exercised by the trial Court cannot be said to be arbitrary for these reasons no case is made out for interference. Revision dismissed.