Enforcement of Partnership Agreements: A Significant Supreme Court Ruling.
 |
| Enforcement of Partnership Agreements: A Significant Supreme Court Ruling |
شراکت داری کے معاہدے پر عملدرآمد: سپریم کورٹ کا ایک اہم فیصلہ
کاروباری شراکت داری میں اکثر معاہدوں کی پاسداری ایک نازک معاملہ بن جاتی ہے، خاص طور پر جب کسی پارٹنر کے حصص کی فروخت یا منتقلی کا معاملہ ہو۔ حالیہ سپریم کورٹ کے فیصلے (2024 CLD 1254) نے شراکت داری کے تنازعات میں سول عدالتوں کے دائرہ اختیار کو واضح کر دیا ہے اور یہ طے کیا ہے کہ ایسے معاملات کو کمپنی لا کے بجائے شراکت داری کے اصولوں کے تحت دیکھا جائے گا۔
پس منظر
یہ مقدمہ مست رہمت بیگم (مدعا علیہہ) اور محفوظ احمد (مدعی) کے درمیان ایک رجسٹرڈ شراکت داری فرم کے 50% شیئر کی خرید و فروخت سے متعلق تھا۔ محفوظ احمد نے مست رہمت بیگم کے حصص خریدنے کے لیے ایک معاہدہ کیا، لیکن مبینہ خلاف ورزی پر مخصوص کارکردگی (Specific Performance) کے لیے سول عدالت میں دعویٰ دائر کر دیا۔
قانونی نکات اور عدالتی کارروائی
مدعا علیہہ نے مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ یہ معاملہ کمپنیز ایکٹ، 2017 کے تحت آتا ہے، اس لیے سول عدالت کو مقدمہ سننے کا اختیار نہیں۔ ٹرائل کورٹ نے اس مؤقف کو قبول کرتے ہوئے CPC کے آرڈر VII رول 11 کے تحت دعویٰ مسترد کر دیا، جسے فرسٹ اپیلٹ کورٹ نے بھی برقرار رکھا۔ تاہم، ہائی کورٹ نے یہ فیصلہ کالعدم کر کے مقدمہ دوبارہ سننے کا حکم دیا۔
مدعا علیہہ نے ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلے کو سپریم کورٹ میں چیلنج کیا، لیکن سپریم کورٹ نے ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلے کو برقرار رکھتے ہوئے کہا کہ یہ معاملہ شراکت داری کے معاہدے سے متعلق ہے، نہ کہ کمپنی کے قوانین سے۔ چنانچہ مقدمہ میرٹ پر سماعت کے لیے دوبارہ ٹرائل کورٹ کو بھیج دیا گیا۔
سپریم کورٹ کا فیصلہ اور اس کے اثرات
سپریم کورٹ نے اس کیس میں درج ذیل اہم نکات واضح کیے:
- شراکت داری کے تنازعات سول عدالت میں قابل سماعت ہیں، جب تک کہ معاملہ کسی کارپوریٹ ادارے سے متعلق نہ ہو۔
- CPC کے آرڈر VII رول 11 کے تحت مقدمہ مسترد
Must read judgement
Citation Name : 2024 CLD 1254 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : Mst. REHMAT BEGUM
Side Opponent : MEHFOOZ AHMED
Ss. 2(9), 2(17) & 5---Partnership Act (IX of 1932), Ss. 4, 32, 39 & 40---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 12 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 11---Suit for specific performance of agreement, recovery and permanent injunction---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Partnership agreement---Agreement for Transfer of shares between partners---Jurisdiction of Civil Court---In the present case the business entity was being operated through a registered partnership firm between the two partners i.e. the petitioner (defendant) and respondent No. 1 (plaintiff)---Said business was neither a corporate entity nor was it incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, or the Companies Act, 2017 therefore, the assertion of the petitioner that the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 5 of the Companies Act, 2017 was misconceived and fallacious---As a matter of fact, Section 5 had no applicability or nexus in the matter---Therefore, it had nothing to do with the pending suit between the parties---Substratum of the plaint did not highlight any dispute with regards to the business of the partnership firm, nor did anybody approached the Court for dissolution of the partnership firm or rendition of accounts; but for all practical purposes, the respondent No.1 only entered into an agreement for buying out 50% share of the petitioner in the partnership firm against a valuable consideration, and due to the alleged breach and non-fulfillment of terms and conditions of the agreement, respondent No.1 filed the suit for specific performance of contract with some other ancillary reliefs---All the prayers mentioned by the respondent No.1 were not considered (by the Trial and Appellate Court) which had independent status and were not dependent upon the alleged right of execution of sale deed or Transfer of 50% share of the partnership firm in favour of respondent No.1 against a valuable consideration---According to respondent No.1, the partnership business was a going concern and he wanted to buy out 50% share of another partner---Effect of the agreement in question was also to be decided by the Trial Court on whether the arrangement in question could be construed as an agreement for relinquishment of share or retirement from the firm---On the alleged consensus ad idem, the contract was signed, and on the alleged breach, respondent No.1 filed the suit---Court cannot force someone to file a suit for dissolution of partnership or rendition of accounts, but it has to see whether specific performance of contract is possible or not, and in this case, unless the parties were provided equal opportunity to lead the evidence, it was not possible to decide the matter summarily on the basis of an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.---At present stage, the Trial Court could not presume or anticipate the outcome that if the case was made out on merits and the Court granted a decree of specific performance, what the plaintiff would do with the partnership business, and whether he would induct any other partner, continue as proprietor, or convert it into a corporate entity of business---That was not the issue before the Court right now---At present, the lis only related to the alleged sale agreement of 50% share of another partner against some valuable consideration---This was the core issue and dispute between the parties which needed to be adjudicated by the Trial Court---High Court had rightly set-aside the orders of Trial Court and First Appellate Court, whereby the plaint was rejected, and remanded the matter to Trial Court with directions to decide the suit on merits---Petition was dismissed and leave was refused