R.Murugan @ Balamuruganandam And 3 Others v. R.Balasubramanian And 20 Others

Arb.O.P.No.5 of 2022 Arb.O.P.No.5 of 2022 KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

When the petition is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the alleged partnership agreement is not in existence and the said partnership agreement was not signed by all the eleven partners, only five partners have signed, therefore, in the eye of law, no partnership agreement is in existence.

2. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs have been collected from each of the partners and the 1st and 2nd respondents are operating all the accounts. Further, the original partnership agreement / document would show that all the partners have signed the partnership agreement and seeks time to produce the same.

3. It appears that the 1st and 2nd respondents are operating all the accounts including bank accounts. The 1st and 2nd respondents are directed to submit the details of the amount collected from all the partners and also the expenditure incurred from the date of collection of the amount till date. Further, the petitioner is also directed to produce the original partnership agreement. Post on 25.08.2022. 02.08.2022 1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.No.5 of 2022 KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

ssd Arb.O.P.No.5 of 2022 02.08.2022 2/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis