IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 8135 of 2011(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. M/S.ESQUIRE MARKETING, CC NO.39/1645, ARJUN CHAMBERS, KALATHIPARAMBIL CROSS ROAD, VALANJABALAM, KOCHI-682 016, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. 2. MANSOOR SHAMS, S/O.M.SHAMSUDDIN, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.ESQUIRE MARKETING, CC NO.39/1645, ARJUN CHAMBERS, KALATHIPARAMBIL CROSS ROAD, VALANJABALAM, KOCHI-682 016. 3. JASEELA MANSOOR, W/O.MANSOOR SHAMS, PARTNER, M/S.ESQUIRE MARKETING, CC NO.39/1645, ARJUN CHAMBERS, KALATHIPARAMBIL CROSS ROAD, VALANJABALAM, KOCHI-682 016, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 62/2080, MALIKAYIL, DESHABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 017. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE CITY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 011. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 682 018. 3. ABDULLA KUNHI, S/O.MOIDEEN KUNHI, DOOR NO.C12/345, MOHIUDEEN MANZIL, MUTTAM GATE, SHIRIYA PO, KUMBALA (VIA), KASARAGODE DISTRICT-671 321. tss W.P.(C) NO.8135/2011 4. FIROZ JHAN, S/O.NAVAB JHAN, SIKANDHAR MANZIL, VAZHOTTUKONAM WARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.JAIBY PAUL R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.C.SARATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.8135/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT DTD. 3.10.2001. P2:- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 15.1.2007 HANED OFCER TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 11.3.2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 8135 of 2011-N ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioners - one partnership firm and two Partners, have come to this Court seeking issue of directions for police protection to respondents 1 and 2 under Art.226 of the Constitution against respondents 3 and 4. 2. According to the petitioners, at present, there are 5 partners in the 1st petitioner partnership firm. 2nd and 3rd petitioners are two of such Partners - the 2nd petitioner being the Managing Partner and the 3rd respondent being another Partner. According to the petitioners, the 3rd respondent claims that he has transferred fraction of his rights in the partnership to the 4th respondent. Respondents 3 and 4 are threatening and intimidating the petitioners. They have insisted that the petitioners must execute documents as dictated by them. The petitioners are not willing to do the same. The petitioners apprehend physical harm to their lives and person from respondents 3 and 4. In these circumstances, appropriate directions may be issued, it is submitted. W.P.(C) No. 8135 of 2011 -: 2 :- 3. The 4th respondent asserts categorically that he has nothing to do with the partnership firm and does not intend to indulge in any acts against the petitioners. We do first of all make record of that submission. We accept that submission of the learned counsel for the 4th respondent. Inasmuch as the 4th respondent does not claim any rights in the partnership, relief, we are satisfied, can safely be granted to the petitioner against the 4th respondent. 4. Coming to the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent continues to be a partner. He has not been expelled from the partnership. Partnership has not been sought to be dissolved. So long as the 3rd respondent continues to be a partner, he is entitled to exercise the right/privilege of a partner. We are satisfied that no specific directions need be issued by us under Art.226 of the Constitution regarding the exercise of the rights of the 3rd respondent as a partner. If parties have any disputes on those aspects, it is upto either of them to go to the civil court and seek appropriate orders. 5. But we find merit in the prayer of the petitioners that their lives and person may be protected. The most important W.P.(C) No. 8135 of 2011 -: 3 :- grievance raised by the petitioners is that they apprehend that they will be compelled to subscribe their signatures in the documents prepared by respondents 3 and 4. We are satisfied that appropriate directions for the protection of life and person of petitioners 2 and 3 can safely be granted. 6. In the result: (a) This writ petition is allowed in part. (b) We accept the submission of the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that the 4th respondent is not interested in the partnership and its assets and does not intend to indulge in any contumacious or culpable acts against the petitioners. If there be any action on the part of the 4th respondent in violation of the undertaken given to the Court, respondents 1 and 2 shall take appropriate action to afford protection to the petitioners. (c) So far as the 3rd respondent is concerned, disputes, if any, between the petitioners on the one hand and the 3rd respondent on the other, will have to be settled/resolved in accordance with law by seeking appropriate orders/directions from the civil court. (d) However, it is directed that the police protection will W.P.(C) No. 8135 of 2011 -: 4 :- be afforded by respondents 1 and 2 for the petitioners against any attempt by the 3rd respondent to compel the petitioners to execute any documents against their will/desire. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge