1212wp4869.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 4869 OF 2011 (Rajesh Kailash Sharma Vs. Prashant Govindrao Joshi & another) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. Anjan De,, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri A. R. Deshpande, Counsel for respondent No.1 Shri Lonare, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 3 & 4. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATED : 12 DECEMBER, 2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the two concurrent orders passed by the trial Court and the first Appellate Court rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondent No.1 from depositing the cheques received from respondent No.2-Municipal Council in the name of the firm in any account other than the account of the firm opened in The Shegaon Shri Agrasen Sahakari Pat Sanstha Marayadit, Shegaon. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and the respondent No.1 had entered into a partnership vide partnership deed dated 12/2/2008, as a result of which, the petitioner was to receive 40% of the amount receivable from the respondent No.2-Municipal 1212wp4869.11.odt 2/3 Council towards the work contract which was to be executed by the partnership firm. According to the plaintiff-petitioner, the partnership comprised of two partners, the petitioner and the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 was to receive 60% share in the amount received from the work done for the Municipal Council. It is the case of the petitioner that initially the respondent No.1 deposited the amount received from respondent No.2-Municipal Council in the account of the firm in The Shegaon Shri Agrasen Sahakari Pat Sanstha Marayadit, Shegaon, but, later on, with a view to defraud the petitioner, started depositing the same in some other Bank, thereby depriving the petitioner of 40% of the share in the amount received from the Municipal Council. In this background, the aforesaid injunction was prayed by the petitioner. Both the Courts concurrently held on a proper appreciation of the material on record that the plaintiff- petitioner had failed to prove a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was also not in favour of the petitioner. The Courts held that the petitioner was trying to enforce his right on the basis of the contract by relying on a partnership deed, which was an unregistered document. The 1212wp4869.11.odt 3/3 Courts found that there was no privity of contract between the petitioner-plaintiff and the respondent No.2-Municipal Council. The Courts found that the defendant No.1 had submitted the tender in the name of M/s Joshi Engineers & Associates on 24/12/2007, the work order was accepted in the firm’s name and the firm comprised of some other partners. The Courts found that the joint account was opened in the name of the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 on 24/12/2007, whereas the unregistered partnership deed was executed on 12/2/2008. In the aforesaid set of facts, according to the Courts, there was no question of restraining the respondent No.1 from depositing the cheque in an account other than the account of the firm opened in The Shegaon Shri Agrasen Sahakari Pat Sanstha Marayadit, Shegaon. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts and call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE wwl