IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931 FAO.No. 59 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/01/2009 IN IA.968/2008 IN OS.79/2008 of PRL.S.C.,THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT - PETITIONER - PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------------------ M.PRASAD KUMAR, S/O.RAGHAVAN, 'PRASAD', NEAR SANGEETHA TALKIES, PAYYAMBALAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT - DEFENDANT ------------------------------------- M.V.MUHAMMED ASHRAF, S/O.P.V.IBRAHIM, MARATH VANIYAKKARAKATH HOUSE, P.O.PAZHAYANGADI R.S., KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.INNOCENT FRANCIS PAPALI FOR CAVEATOR SRI.S.K.BALACHANDRAN FOR MEDIATOR THIS FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.Raman & P.S.Gopinathan, JJ. ================================== F.A.O.No.59 of 2009 ================================== Dated this the 3rd day of April 2009. JUDGMENT Raman,J. The appeal arises from an order rejecting the application for appointment of receiver by the court below. The suit is in the year 2008. The suit is one for dissolution of the partnership firm. The case of the plaintiff/appellant is that he along with the respondent was running business in petroleum products. Formerly, it was the appellant's father who was conducting the pump and as per the partnership, 60% of the profit is to be given to the appellant and 40% to the respondent. But the respondents failed to comply with the conditions. It is in the circumstances, the suit is filed. The court below by the impugned order rejected the application on the ground that the suit itself can be disposed of and that appointment of receiver was not necessary. We are not interfering with that portion of the observation. F.A.O.59 of 2009 -:2:- However, in the meantime, though appointment of receiver as such may not be necessary, some interim arrangement has to be made taking into consideration the balance of convenience. 2. Admittedly, the business is now conducted by the respondents, but the licence is in the name of the appellant. Therefore the appellant cannot be denied even a portion of the profit that is earned from the business now done, unless otherwise decided in the suit. In the circumstances, we direct that while the respondent may do the business, the accounts have to be audited by a reputed chartered accountant, every two month's profit worked out and 30% of the profit shall be deposited before the court below. This arrangement will continue till the disposal of the suit. M/s Varma & Varma, Chartered Accountant is accordingly appointed, who shall verify the accounts every two months. The fee payable to the Chartered Accountant shall come out of the business. It is open to the appellant to withdraw the amount deposited on F.A.O.59 of 2009 -:3:- furnishing security to the satisfaction of the court below. This interim arrangement shall not affect the contention of the parties and the decision to be taken in the suit. F.A.O. is disposed of as above. P.R.Raman, Judge. P.S.Gopinathan, Judge. css/