Ravindra Kumar Chopra vs. Snehlata Chopra

Facts

This appeal concerns a partnership dispute between two brothers, Ravindra Kumar Chopra (appellant) and Snehlata Chopra (respondent). The respondent filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, alleging that the appellant was carrying on a similar business as the partnership firm, M/s. Machinery Agencies, and making illegal gains. The respondent also alleged other wrongdoings by the appellant. The appellant's counsel argued that the impugned order, passed on May 8, 2023, by the learned trial judge, was made without proper notice and opportunity to file affidavits, and that interlocutory prayers (a), (b), (c), (f), and (g) of the notice of motion were virtually allowed. The appellant's counsel also stated that the business of M/s. Gouranga Rubber House was being carried on by third parties unrelated to her client.

Held

The High Court admitted the appeal and disposed of it by admitting the appeal and passing an order in terms of prayer (a) of the stay petition. The Court observed and directed that the interim application and its prayers (a), (b), (c), (f), and (g) must be considered afresh by the learned single judge. This reconsideration must include the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the appellant/respondent and a hearing for his learned counsel. Only after this fresh consideration should the Court decide on the continuance, variation, or vacation of the impugned order. The Court also directed that no contempt or enforcement proceedings would be taken for any alleged violation of the May 8, 2023 order from that date until the present. The Court clarified that from the date of this order, the learned single judge could pass any order deemed fit. Pending a decision by the court of first instance, the status quo as of the date of the High Court's order was to be maintained by the parties. The appeal and the application were disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned trial judge erred in passing orders in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c), (f), and (g) of the notice of motion without affording the appellant an opportunity to file affidavits and be properly heard, thereby violating principles of natural justice, as argued by the appellant. 2. Whether the interim application, based on allegations of the appellant carrying on a competing business and other wrongdoings, was ripe for hearing and decision, as contended by the respondent. Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant (Ravindra Kumar Chopra): The learned trial judge did not properly inform the appellant's counsel and allowed the interlocutory application without giving an opportunity to file affidavits. The prayers granted were (a) injunction restraining competing business, (b) injunction restraining unilateral operation of bank accounts, (c) injunction restraining use of firm assets for parallel business, (f) direction to disclose accounts of M/s. Ravindra Kumar Chopra and M/s. Gouranga Rubber House, and (g) direction to provide Income Tax and GST portal login details for the Agartala branch. The appellant also claimed that the business of M/s. Gouranga Rubber House is conducted by third parties.