BONNY SODHI Vs. SHARDA DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Civil Revision against the order dated 5.10.2000 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh whereby she has allowed the application of the respondents/defendants for referring the matter to the Arbitrator.

(2.) MRS . Bony Sodhi and Mrs. Sheila Mamik have filed suit for rendition of accounts and dissolution/winding up of the firm known as "Vivek Nursery and Preparatory School, 52, Sector 9, Chandigarh" and have prayed that after passing preliminary decree, further decree, for distribution of the assets of the said firm be passed mentioning therein the partners and also for the recovery of the amount which may be found payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs alongwith interest and costs against Mrs. Sharda Dutt and Mrs. Sunaiyna Dass, and decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from acting individually as Principal or as partner or from doing anything on behalf of the firm for running the school or for collecting the funds or to create any liability. It has been alleged in the plaint that in the beginning, firm was floated with five partners for running the school in the name and style of Vivek Nursery and Preparatory School. On 29.2.1972, one partner named Mrs. I. Chitambar retired from the partnership. New partnership deed was executed in the year 1972. Again, partnership was modified and on 1.7.1972, a deed of partnership was executed. There were two partners Mrs. Romola Chauhan and in her place Mrs. Sunaiyna Dass was inducted as partner in place of Mrs. Priyamvada Swift, Mrs. Sheila Mamik was inducted as partner. Partnership was modified and amended from time to time, and finally modified partnership deed was executed on 4.3.1993. According to this partnership deed all the terms and conditions which are incorporated in the deed dated 8.10.1975 were to be read as part of partnership deed dated 4.3.1993, except the terms which were inconsistent with the terms mentioned in partnership deed dated 4.3.1993 and the Clauses which are mentioned in the partnership deed dated 4.3.1993 were to prevail upon the partnership deed dated 8.10.1995. Clause 13 of the partnership deed dated 8.10.1975 reads as under :-

(3.) IT is further alleged in the plaint that on account of her acts of omission and commission and also on account of the fact that she was removed from the Principalship of the school, Mrs. Sunaiyna Dass was not entitled to act as Principal any more and to run the affairs of the school. It is also mentioned in the plaint that defendants are not entitled to act or run the affairs of the school without the consent of the partners. Since no meeting has held, deadlock is created among the partners. Differences have arisen among the partners which are irreconcilable. In the face of differences persisting there is no possibility of partnership business being run. There is no possibility of running the school amicably and in an orderly manner. The plaintiffs have, therefore, decided to dissolve the Firm which may be dissolved according to the procedure incorporated in the said two partnership deeds. Defendants are maintaining the accounts and they are also in the custody of all the assets of the firm. There are certain amounts lying deposited in the Bank, which can be operated with the consent of the partners according to the partnership deed. Both the defendants are liable to render the accounts. Defendant No. 2 Mrs. Sunaiyna Dass was not entitled to act as Principal. She is not entitled to do any act on behalf of the Firm without the consent of the other partners. Plaintiffs are partners of the partnership in equal shares. They are competent to remove her from Principalship of the school. Plaintiffs are also entitled to rendition of accounts and distribution of the assets and thereafter for the recovery of the amount which may be found due in terms of the said two partnership deeds.