Rajiv Sharma, J. - (1.) AT the outset, it is necessary to point out that this writ petition was dismissed mainly on account of non -presence of the Petitioner's counsel by the order dated 22.4.2008. Subsequently, an application for recall, bearing C.M. Application No. 22997 of 2010, was filed. This application was opposed by the Respondent No. 4. Later on, this Court, after hearing the parties' counsel, came to the conclusion that ends of justice would be served, if the writ petition is decided on merit and accordingly revived the interim order, passed earlier in favour of Petitioners vide order dated 23.7.2004. It appears that somehow, the order restoring the writ petition to its original number, was left to be transcribed. It may be noted that as the matter was lingering since long, Sri Umesh Chandra, Counsel appearing for one of the Respondents and other Counsel consented that the matter may be heard and decided finally and as such interim order which was operating earlier was again revived, which would be evident from the order sheets. In these circumstances, it is clarified that the order dated 22.4.2008 shall be treated to have been recalled for all practical purposes.
(2.) BY means of instant writ petition, Petitioners have sought for quashing impugned orders dated 8.9.2003 and 7.1.2004 passed by the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits Uttar Pradesh (Respondent No. 1), contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition, whereby vide entries made in Form -7 with regard to the change in the constitution of Registered Firm M/s Dwarka Prasad and Brothers filed by the partner of Firm dated 12.5.1995, has been declared void. Petitioners are also aggrieved by the order dated 3.12.2003 whereby the stay granted vide order dated 20.10.2003 has been vacated inter -alia on the ground that the same has been passed without giving any opportunity, causing serious prejudice to the Petitioners. Brief facts of the case are that a firm, namely, M/S Dwarka Prasad Agarwal and Brothers was constituted comprising Dwarka Prasad Agarwal, Bishambhar Dayal Agarwal, Mahesh Prasad Agarwal and Ramesh Chandra Agarwal as partners and the same was registered with the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Jhansi on 15.11.1976. Sri Mahesh Prasad Agarwal in November, 1987 issued a notice allegedly under Section 43 of the Indian Partnership Act seeking for dissolution of the said firm, by claiming that the Partnership is 'At will'. On 11.12.1987, Sri Bishambhar Dayal Agarwal, the then partner of the said firm tendered a reply to the alleged notice stating therein that the Partnership was not 'At will'. However, the notice of Sri Mahesh Prasad Agarwal for dissolution of the Firm was taken as a notice of retirement and from 25.11.1987, Sri Mahesh Prasad Agarwal was not treated as partner of the Firm, i.e., from the date on which the notice sent by Sri Mahesh Prasad Agarwal for dissolution of the Firm was received. The notice was also published in the newspaper that he is no more a partner in the aforesaid firm.
(3.) SRI Ramesh Chandra Agarwal, another partner of the firm withdrew himself from the partnership of the said firm and constituted his own company under the name and style of M/s Writers and Publishers Pvt. Limited and launched a new Newspaper under the title of 'Nav Bhaskar'. It is said that Bishambhar Dayal Agarwal, Ramesh Chandra Agarwal and Mahesh Chandra Agarwal filed a compromise in Jabalpur High Court claiming that the Firm M/s Dwarka Prasad Agarwal and brothers stood dissolved and the assets of the firm stood distributed amongst the parties, as per terms of compromise. After the judgment and order dated 29.6.1992 passed by the Jabalpur High Court, the Respondent No. 4 and Ors. succeeded in getting the ownership of Newspaper 'Dainik Bhaskar' transferred from the firm of the Petitioner to M/s Writers and Publishers Pvt. Limited. As the compromise was without knowledge of all concerned and on that basis, the writ petition was disposed of, the matter reached to the Hon'ble Apex Court and ultimately all the controversies were settled vide judgment and order dated 7.7.2003 passed by the Apex Court.;