1 mgj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Suit No.2221 of 2009 with Notice of Motion No.3109 of 2009 Rayomand Rohinton Irani ..Plaintiff Vs. 1 Khodadad Merwan Mundewar (Irani) and others ..Defendants Mr.Pradeep Ramchjandani for plaintiff Mr.Gabrial Pillai for defendant nos. 1 to 5. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI J. 25 th November, 2009 P.C. 1 There is a dispute between the partners and that is how the suit was filed for dissolution of the partnership and accounts. 2 During the course of arguments, a deed dated 28 th January, 2009 was produced and even that deed was challenged by the plaintiff alleging that the partnership firm is reconstituted but the reconstituted firm 2 cannot be held to be entitled to the assets of the firm which was already functioning. 3 During the course of the proceedings and when an interim order is made in the notice of motion, the parties have met and resolved the dispute amicably. They have come forward before the Court with agreed terms wherein it is stated that defendant no.4 has nothing to do with the suit partnership and business. Further the deed dated 28 th January, 2009 has been cancelled by mutual consent. That deed is now destroyed. Thus, it is not to be acted upon.; The original partnership firm and its business shall continue with the same number of partners as before. There are various clauses in the consent terms providing that even if the firm is to be reconstituted in future it is to be reconstituted only with the heirs and legal representatives of the partners. Therefore, the firm Cafe Royal as originally functioning 3 continues to carry on the business of a restaurant from the premises which belong to Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Bothy sides are fully aware that Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. initiated proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The Estate Officer has made an order of eviction dated 2 nd April, 2009 against Cafe Royal. There is also an order made for payment of arrears of compensation. This order and direction is challenged in appeal under sec.9 of the said Act before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai. The appeal is admitted and is pending. However, as a condition precedent for stay of order of eviction, the City Civil Court directed deposit of a sum and that order and direction of the City Civil Court is challenged first in the High Court and thereafter in the Hon ble Supreme Court of India. Presently, Hon ble Supreme Court has 4 stayed the order of eviction on deposit of a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- which is stated to be deposited. 4 It is, during the pendency of the said proceedings that the present consent terms are tendered. The landlord/insurance company is not a party to the suit. Naturally, therefore, any arragement made between the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 to 4 would not prejudice the rights of the landlord either to evict the firm or to claim such monetary compensation as is permissible in law. The said proceedings to continue and would be disposed of on their own merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced by the arrangement arrived at between the parties. 5 The consent terms are taken on record with this specific understanding and that is made clear to the parties and their Advocates. 6 It is, in such circumstances, that 5 the consent terms duly signed by the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 to 5 so also by one Mint Hospitality Pvt.Ltd. and respective Advocates are taken on record and marked X for identification. There will be an order in terms of the minutes which are also taken on record and marked X-1 for identification. Since the Court Receiver has not taken possession he will stand discharged without passing accounts and without any payment of costs, charges and expenses. Notice of Motion in the suit stands disposed of accordingly. Refund of Court fees as per rules. No order as to costs. Ad-interim order to stand vacated forthwith. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)