Held: Father of the appellant, ‘AR’, ‘KR’, and respondent No.1 are real brothers – The shop in question was a joint partnership of the HUF of the appellant and respondent No.1 and they had signed the partnership deed as Kartas of the respective HUF – The purchase of the shop in question by M/s Sushma Constructions Pvt. Ltd. of which ‘AR’ and his wife were the promoters/Directors from the erstwhile owner could have been part of the larger conspiracy planned in collusion with respondent No.1 but no finding is being recorded to that effect at this stage – The filing of the Suit for eviction by M/s Sushma Constructions Pvt. Ltd. impleading only respondent No.1 as the defendant speaks volumes about their collusion – What made ‘AR’ believe that it was respondent No.1, who was alone the owner and in possession of the business being run from the shop in question, is nowhere reflected – In any case, once the notices for eviction were served upon respondent No.1, he ought to have disclosed this fact in ETC.
the said suit that firstly, the business in the shop in question was being jointly run by him and the appellant and that there was an injunction operating passed by a competent Court of District Judge in proceedings u/s.9, 1996 Act – Further, Respondent No.1 almost admitted the claim for eviction which ultimately was the basis for the High Court to decree the suit – It was a collusive suit and, in any case, respondent No.1 was dishonest and deliberately concealed the material fact from the Court – Respondent No.1, along with other co-accused, including not only the Directors/promoters of M/s Sushma Constructions Pvt. Ltd. but also others, removed the assets and belongings inside the shop in question by breaking open the locks in violation of the injunction orders – All the offences are cognizable in nature and on facts, basic ingredients being in the FIR, the High Court erred in quashing the FIR – Whether the offences are proved or not would be a subject matter of the Trial and before that of the investigation as to whether a triable case is made out or not by the investigating agency but in any case, was not a case where FIR was liable to be quashed – Impugned judgment set aside – Matter to proceed with respect to the FIR in question in accordance with law – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.9,
36. [Paras 5, 8, 9, 15 and 17]
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.