2023 INSC 941
VIKRAM NATH,J.
The appellant and the private respondents belong to the same family and the pedigree is as follows: SLP(CRL.) NO.8629-8630/2019 The appellant and respondent No.1 entered into a partnership as Karta of their respective HUFs and a partnership deed dated 01.04.2012 was reduced into writing. Respondent No.1 gave a legal notice dated 27.05.2013 to the appellant expressing his desire to dissolve the firm w.e.f. In response, the appellant gave a legal notice dated 07.06.2013 requesting the respondent 1 to withdraw his notice dated 27.05.2013. 11ga application for appointment of special messenger or advocate Commissioner is accepted Shri Prabhat Sharma Advocate is appointed as advocate Commissioner who will go to the place and serve the notice on the opposite party and before the date will file their report.
The District Judge accordingly directed that the entire assets and belongings of the firm M/s Lala Jugal Kishore and Sons at premises No.26/59, Birhana Road, Kanpur shall be preserved till the making of the arbitral award SLP(CRL.) NO.8629-8630/2019 Page 6 of 19 before it is enforced in accordance with section 36 of the 1996 Act.
The entire assets, belongings of the firm M/s Lala Jugal Kishore & Sons at Premises No.26/59, Birhana Road, Kanpur Nagar, shall be preserved till the making of the arbitral award before it is enforced in accordance with Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.” According to the appellant, an arbitral award was passed on 29.08.2013, a copy whereof is filed along with the rejoinder affidavit as Annexure-R5. filed an eviction suit against the respondent No.1 in the Court of Judge, Small Causes/ Additional District Judge, Court No.16, Kanpur Nagar registered as Small Causes Suit No.309 of 2014. It was also provided that as per the agreed terms, if the possession is handed over within 30 days, the plaintiff M/s Sushma Constructions Pvt. On this statement, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-revisionist very fairly submits that in case the peaceful possession is handed over by the defendant- respondent within 30 days from today, he shall not press for any recovery of the arrears of rent. Revision stands allowed, however, with the observations as made above.” 3.9 Respondent No.1, on the strength of the aforesaid order passed by the High Court, surrendered the shop in question to M/s Sushma Constructions Pvt. Writ Petition No.31343 of 2018 filed by Pankaj Rastogi, Mohit Rastogi and Ketan Kumar Shah and Criminal Misc.
At the outset, it may be noted that Raj Kishore Rastogi (father of the appellant), Ambuj Rastogi, Kunal Rastogi, and Pankaj Rastogi (respondent No.1) are real brothers. It is difficult to presume that Ambuj Rastogi and Sushma Rastogi were not aware of the orders passed in the section 9 proceedings under the 1996 Act but even if it is assumed that they were not aware of the said orders the fact remains that respondent No.1 had due knowledge and was well aware of the orders passed by the District Judge in the aforesaid proceedings.
Citation: 2023 NewsLaw (SC) 01
Case Title: RUCHIR RASTOGI Vs. PANKAJ RASTOGI AND OTHERS ETC.
Case Number: SLP (Crl.) Nos.8629-8630 of 2019
