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