Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42,54

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42,54

Law: Partnership Act, 1932

Section: 32

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss. 42 & 54---Partnership Act (IX of 1932), S.32---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Suit for declaration and injunction---Interim injunction, grant of---Partnership concerned---Retirement of partner---Procedure---Plaintiffs claimed that according to Circular Resolution defendants were suspended from management of the firm---Validity---Where partnership deed had provided mode of retirement, such mode should be adopted for retirement alone---If a thing was required to be done in particular manner then it must be done in that manner alone---Mode of retirement was provided in the partnership deed and case fell within the ambit of S.32(1)(b) of Partnership Act, 1932---Circular Resolution had not been passed by 3/4th majority of votes, as the defendants had 29.07% share in the partnership firm---Defendant was not only the partner of the firm but he was Deputy Managing partner as well as member of the Board---Managing partner or Deputy Managing partner was for a period of 5 years and it was prerogative of partners' general meeting to choose the Managing partner in case of demise or retirement of the Managing partner---Neither the Managing partner died nor taken retirement from the partnership firm, therefore, another partner could not become Chief Executive of the firm without having the post of Chief Executive in the partnership deed in question---Circular Resolution regarding suspension of defendants had been passed after passing of interim orders by civil court at other cities for which defendants had filed contempt application which was pending---Plaintiffs had no prima facie case and balance of convenience was also not in favour of plaintiffs as great inconvenience would be caused to defendants in exercising their legal rights to deal with the subject-matter as per law---No irreparable loss would be caused to plaintiffs, if injunction was refused because the loss, if any could be compensated in shape of damages---High Court declined to grant interim injunction in favour of plaintiffs---Application was dismissed in circumstances. Inam Naqshband v. Haji Shaikh Ijaz Ahmad PLD 1995 SC 314; Bashir…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492