BARNALI MUKHERJEE vs RAJIA BEGUM

The parties are represented in person. The defect pointed out by the department should be removed before the matter appears next a fortnight hence.

Prima facie, the order impugned cannot be sustained. The respondent herein carried a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation

Act, 1996 before the court below seeking interim measures. The case of the respondent herein before the first court was that she was entitled to

participate in the business of a partnership firm running jewellery business pursuant to a document apparently executed on April 17, 2007. The

appellant herein asserted in the written objection in the court below that the document was not executed by the appellant or anyone on her behalf. It

was the further contention of the appellant herein before the first court that the respondent herein had not attempted to participate in the business for a

period of more than ten years after the execution of the alleged document of April 17, 2007 and that the respondent herein could not demonstrate her

attempt to participate in the business in any manner or form.

Despite such factual position, particularly that the respondent herein could not demonstrate that she had participated in the business at any point of

time after the execution of the alleged document of April 17, 2007, the order of injunction could not have been issued. However, the view expressed

herein is tentative and it will be open to the respondent to demonstrate otherwise when the matter is next taken up.

There will be a stay of the operation of the order impugned dated February 19, 2018 till the disposal of this appeal. However, the appellant and the

present persons running the business will remain restrained from creating any third party rights over the fixed assets of the business without the

previous leave of this court.