IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 5484 of 2008
Date of Decision : November 28, 2008
Satvir Singh Joon and another
....Petitioners
Versus
Hari Kishan Goel
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate with
Mr. Rajesh Chug, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate with
Mr. B. Diwakar, Advocate
for the respondent.
T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)
A suit for dissolution of firm, rendition of accounts and
injunction was filed by the respondent. Along with his suit, he also filed an
application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151
C.P.C. so as to restrain Satvir Singh Joon-defendant No. 2, petitioner
herein, from transacting any business in the name of the firm, i.e. defendant
No. 1, effecting purchase or sale of the goods, withdrawing of any funds
from the bankers of defendant No.1, transfering or alienating any assets,
goods belonging to defendant No. 1 or to otherwise deal with the property,
funds and assets of defendant No.1 in any manner whatsoever. Prayer was
also made for restraining defendant No. 2 from realizing any dues/debts
Civil Revision No. 5484 of 2008 -2-
from debtors of defendant No.1 in any manner whatsoever in his name and
from withdrawing any amount or seeking any refunds of the FDRs/bank
guarantees drawn in the name of defendant No.1 till the final decision of
the suit. The said application was partly allowed by learned Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Faridabad vide order dated January 24, 2008. Both the
parties were restrained from withdrawing or transferring any fund from the
banker of defendant No. 1. Satvir Singh Joon-defendant No. 2 was ordered
to remain bound by his statement regarding not to transfer or alienate any
assets or goods belonging to defendant No. 1. Aggrieved of the same,
Satvir Singh Joon-defendant filed an appeal, which came up for hearing
before learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, who, after hearing
learned counsel for the parties, passed an order on August 01, 2008, by
dismissing the appeal. Not satisfied with the dismissal of his appeal, Satvir
Singh Joon-defendant and the firm filed the present revision under Section
227 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
plaintiff-Hari Kishan Goel had no concern, whatsoever, with M/s Joonix
India. The said firm was sole proprietorship of Satvir Singh Joon. At no
point of time, Hari Kishan Goel was inducted as a partner. The so called
partnership deed dated 1.4.2007 has been set up by Hari Kishan Goel so as
to indicate that he, along with Satvir Singh Joon, was a partner in M/s
Joonix India, which deed was a forged and fabricated document. An FIR
No. 274 dated 3.7.2007 already stands registered at Police Station Central,
Faridabad under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC and during
investigation of the said FIR, the application submitted by Hari Kishan
Civil Revision No. 5484 of 2008 -3-
Goel to the Registrar of Firms for registration of the firm on the basis of
partnership deed dated 1.4.2007, was found to be containing forged and
fabricated signatures of Satvir Singh Joon and this was so stated by the
Forensic Science Laboratory in its report. Accordingly, final report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been submitted in the Court against Hari Kishan
Goel. It is also submitted that plaintiff-Hari Kishan Goel was only inducted
as a partner in another sister concern of M/s Joonix India, i.e. M/s Satyam
Urja Udyog. By referring to the aforementioned material, learned counsel
for the petitioners submitted that no order could have been passed in favour
of plaintiff-Hari Kishan Goel so as to restrain the parties, especially the
petitioners, from withdrawing or transferring any fund from the banker of
defendant No.1 as the funds were very much required by Satvir Singh Joon-
defendant so as to pay off his loan liabilities towards various financial
institutions.
Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the revision
on the ground that at no stage of the case any attempt was made by the
defendants-petitioners to obtain the opinion in regard to the partnership
deed dated 1.4.2007 so as to establish that the same did not bear the
genuine signatures of Satvir Singh Joon. Only the application submitted to
the Registrar of Firms was being made the basis for presentation of the
challan and even there is no sufficient material collected by the prosecution
to connect the respondent with the alleged crime. It is also submitted that
the respondent had contributed a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- by obtaining the
limit, besides arranging another loan of Rs. 80,00,000/- by mortgaging his
property and said amount was contributed towards running operations of
Civil Revision No. 5484 of 2008 -4-
M/s Joonix India. In fact, on 1.4.2007, Satvir Singh Joon had inducted
plaintiff-Hari Kishan Goel as a partner with him in Joonix India, with Hari
Kishan Goel having 75% shares while Satvir Singh Joon the remaining
25% shares.
Learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn the
attention of the Court to the statement of Satvir Singh Joon, which was
made by him before the police at the time when the police was looking into
the compliant made by Hari Kishan Goel against him. In that statement
Satvir Singh Joon had stated that in the year 1992, he started Joonix India
and was running the same at industrial Plot No. 85/59, H.S.I.D.C.,
Faridabad, of which he was the sole proprietor. It showed that earlier he
was the sole proprietor of Joonix India but later on he had inducted Hari
Kishan Goel as a partner with him, as was clear from the partnership dated
1.4.2007. In such a situation, the petitioners could not be allowed to fritter
away the amount which Joonix India had earned on account of supplying
material to JAKEDA.
There are complicated questions of facts set up by the parties.
It would not be appropriate to give a finding on them, at least while hearing
the revision regarding the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2
read with Section 151 C.P.C. as such finding is likely to make or mar the
case of either party. Defendant Satbir Singh Joon-petitioner had made a
statement before the trial Court that he would not transfer or alienate any
assets or goods belonging to Joonix India during the pendency of the
application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. and he was bound
Civil Revision No. 5484 of 2008 -5-
down by his statement till the decision of the case as is apparent from the
order passed by the trial Court. Nothing has been stated by learned
Additional District Judge, Faridabad in this regard while dismissing the
appeal of Satvir Singh Joon. It has, therefore, to be taken that Satvir Singh
Joon would remain bound by his statement that he would not transfer or
alienate any assets or goods belonging to Joonix India.
The Court has been told that Joonix India has to receive an
amount of Rs. 90,00,000/- from JAKEDA. As both the parties have since
been restrained from withdrawing or transferring any fund from the banker
of Joonix India, no useful purpose would be served if the amount, to be so
received by Joonix India, is kept in the bank account of Joonix India as that
would not earn any interest. A direction can, accordingly, be issued to the
banker of Joonix India that as and when any advice is received by it from
JAKEDA so as to transfer the amount of Rs. 90,00,000/- in its account or
by way of a draft/pay-order issued by JAKEDA presented for credit in the
said bank account, the same be invested in the shape of a fixed deposit for a
period of at least 90 days at a time till the decision of the suit. Once the suit
is decided, the amount along with the accrued interest be disbursed,
accordingly. The investment should be made in the name of M/s Joonix
India.
At the same time, also directions can be issued to the trial
Court to expedite the proceedings before it. The Court has been informed
that the pleadings are not complete so far.
Civil Revision No. 5484 of 2008 -6-
The revision is accordingly disposed of by directing the banker
of Joonix India that as and when any advice is received by it from
JAKEDA regarding transfer of the amount of Rs. 90,00,000/- in the account
of Joonix India or a draft/pay order issued by JAKEDA presented for credit
in the said account, the amount so received be invested in the shape of a
fixed deposit for a period of at least 90 days at a time till the decision of the
suit. The amount alongwith the accrued interest be thereafter disbursed as
per the decision in the suit. The trial Court is also directed to complete the
pleadings within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order. The issues be framed thereafter within a period
of another two weeks. Each of the parties shall be granted maximum of
three effective opportunities and the gap between one opportunity and the
other should not exceed two weeks. Efforts be made by the trial Court that
entire exercise of trial be completed within four months.
( T.P.S. MANN )
November 28, 2008 JUDGE
satish