1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2530 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 1661 of 2007 Jyoti R. Bijlani .. Plaintiff versus Krishna Engineering .. Defendant ... Mr.Dinesh P. Shah for the plaintiff Mr.A.G. Damle for the defendant nos.1 and 3. Mr.T.N. Subramaniyam i/b Pimenta Kapasi & Co. for defendant no.2. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED :24th June 2009 P.C:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties. 2. By this motion, the plaintiff seeks order for appointment of a receiver of the suit property and for an injunction restraining the defendants from selling, transferring or alienating the suit property. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff did not press the prayer for appointment of the receiver. 2 4. Plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 1st November 2005. The agreement is in the form of a letter. By that letter the defendant no.2 agreed to sell to the plaintiff the suit property for a total consideration of Rs.42,00,000/- and received a sum of Rs.1,01,000/- as an earnest. The defendants contested the motion and have contended that the property does not belong to the defendant no.2. Admittedly, the property belongs to the defendant no.1 which is a partnership firm. The defendant no.2 is one of the partners. The defendant has not agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff relying on section 22 of the Partnership Act submitted that the agreement dated 1st November 2005 binds the firm and therefore she is entitled to a specific performance. I am unable to agree. Section 22 of the Partnership Act provides that in order to bind a firm, an act or instrument done or executed by a partner or any other person on behalf of the firm, shall be done or executed in the firm name, or in any other manner expressing or implying an intention to bind the firm. The writing dated 1st November 2005 is not in the name of the firm. It does not at all indicate that the defendant no.2 was signing it acting on behalf of the firm so as to bind it. It appears to be a letter written by the defendant no. 3 2 in his personal capacity to the plaintiff. Requirement of section 22 are not at all satisfied by the letter. 6. Sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Partnership Act states that in the absence of any usage or custom of trade to the contrary, the implied authority of a partner does not empower him to do certain things mentioned therein. Plain reading of clause(g) of sub-section(2) of section 19 makes it clear that a partner, in the absence of usage or custom to the contrary, does not have an implied authority to transfer any immovable property belonging to the firm. The suit property is the immovable property. No usage or custom of trade of implied authority of the defendant no.2 is pleaded, much less proved. In the circumstances, the alleged agreement dated 1st November 1985 does not, prima facie bind the firm. 7. I am of the view that the plaintiff has not make out a strong prima facie case for grant of a relief of injunction. 8. Motion is therefore dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK, J)