P.R. Sarin & ANR.
Vs. Harbans Lal Sachdeva(Dead) by LRS. &Ors.  INSC 1104 (20 May 2009)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1740 OF 2008 P.R. SARIN
& ANR. ... Appellant(s) Versus HARBANS LAL SACHDEVA & ORS. ...
Respondent(s) ORDER The respondent No.1 has died. An application for
substitution of the names of the legal representatives has been filed. The
names of the legal representatives are mentioned in the application. The prayer
is allowed. The legal representatives, as mentioned in the application are
ordered to be brought on record.
They shall be
impleaded as respondents (ii) to (vi). Legal representative at Sl.No.(i) is
already on record as respondent No.2.
This appeal is
directed against the judgment and order dated 30th November, 2004, passed by
the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench, disposing of the Writ Petition
filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Counsel appearing for
the appellants submits before us that in a suit for dissolution of the
partnership, a preliminary decree already stands passed by the court 2 of
Additional Judge, District Court, Gwalior in Case No.7-A 78 C.S. The said order
was passed in the suit filed by the appellant herein as plaintiffs seeking for
a decree of dissolution of partnership and for transaction accounts of the
partnership. In the said suit, a preliminary decree was passed on 10th October,
1979, declaring that the partnership firm would be deemed to have been
dissolved from 15/02/1975 and that an advertisement be taken out regarding the
aforesaid dissolution. Our attention is drawn to the orders of the dissolution
made by the Trial Court in the said preliminary decree, particularly, to the
following order as appearing in paragraph 3:- "All the transactions of the
accounts between the plaintiffs & defendants be sough for. It is also be
observed. It is also be observed in this regards that by the order dated
01.2.77 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the defendants No. 1 & 2 had paid the
plaintiffs on dated 05.2.77 and 08.2.77 Rs.1,46,513.60 through this Court. In
this regard it is also be observed that according to the order dated 24.8.79
passed by the Hon'ble High Court, M.P. Bench, at Gwalior, the defendant No.1
present Receiver, who is maintaining the accounts and submitting in this court,
and for auditing of all such accounts Shri P.D. Garg & Co. Patankar Bazar,
lashkar is appointed Auditor and he is instructed to submit his report by
It is pointed out by
the counsel for the appellants that the Receiver, who was appointed by the
court has since died and he has not been replaced till date. It is also
submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellants that the Receiver was
required to maintain accounts and submit the same in the court, which was to be
audited by 3 Shri P.D. Garg & Co., who was appointed as the Auditor by the
court and the said report was required to be filed expeditiously.
Having heard the
learned counsel appearing for the appellants as also the senior counsel appearing
for the respondents, we find that the dispute revolves around within a very
narrow compass. The appellants are before this Court for proper implementation
of the preliminary decree which is passed, particularly, for implementation of
the directions contained in paragraph 3, which are extracted above.
We are also of the
considered opinion that since the Receiver appointed by the court has died in
the meantime, it would be necessary for the trial court to pass appropriate
orders appointing a new Receiver in place of the deceased Receiver. Such an
order of appointment/substitution shall be passed as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of two months from today by the trial court. After
the Receiver is so appointed, he shall be given the custody of all the records
and the accounts of the Company, as as to enable him to place the same before
the Auditor for the purpose of auditing of all such accounts in terms of the
orders passed in the preliminary decree dated 15/10/1979. The report shall be
submitted by the Auditor as expeditiously as possible so as to enable the Trial
Court to pass the final decree in accordance with law and after hearing the
counsel appearing for the parties.
The parties shall now
appear before the Trial Court for further orders on 28/05/2009. Appropriate
orders shall be passed by the Trial Court in terms of the observations made
4 Mr. Amlan Kumar
Ghosh, counsel appearing for the appellants, however, has submitted at this
stage that the Trial Court is wrong in saying that the accounts be submitted by
the receiver with a report by 15.11.1979 and then the same should have been
recorded as upto 15.11.1979. We express no opinion on the same as it is the
order of the Trial Court. He may, however, approach the Trial Court with a
proper application in that regard in accordance with law.
The appeal stands
disposed of in terms of the order.
The records of the
trial court, which were called for and are available with us, are also to be
send back immediately, so as to made available with the trial court on or
before the next date.
(Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)
(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)