TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 87 by virtue of a partnership deed executed on January 13, 1987. Respondent No. 4, who was the exclusive owner of land measuring 23 kanals 8 marlas, consisting of Khasra Nos. 59/9 and 83/22 killa Nos. 1, 2, 10.2 and 2 in Patti Bhagararu-Mullana, agreed to contribute the same as her share in the new partnership firm. One of the conditions of the latest partnership deed dated April 1, 1995 entered into between the parties was that no partner shall hypothecate or alienate, in any manner, any property of the firm or raise any loan or create any liability in his/her individual capacity for personal purpose. The firm for the purpose of setting up of the rice sheller raised loan from the Haryana Financial Corporation, for which the mortgage deed w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and was to own all the assets and liabilities as on the date of dissolution. The said dissolution deed does not form part of the documents annexed with the petition, as the same is stated to be not readily available with the petitioners. According to the petitioners, after the dissolution, the firm continued to function for a period of two years under the sole proprietorship of respondent No. 4 through her son, Yogesh Goel, and the surplus generated from the business of the firm during this period went to the account of respondent No. 4 only. Petitioner No. 1 was served with a notice dated September 21, 1999 for recovery of Rs. 3,16,383 outstanding against the firm, being one of the partners, which was duly replied to by petitioner No. 1 st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tember, 1999, the official respondents issued notice dated June 12, 2006 to petitioner No. 1 seeking to recover the amount of sales tax due against the firm for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97, which was followed by summons dated August 25, 2006 for recovery thereof as arrears of land revenue. The summons were issued only in the name of petitioner No. 1 and not in the names of other partners who were allegedly there when the original partnership firm was constituted. In reply to the writ petition, the official respondents submitted that the demand was created on account of purchase tax leviable on paddy, the rice procured out of which was sold to the exporter, in terms of the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Monga Ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... machinery erected by the firm by raising loan from the Haryana Financial Corporation has not been denied. Another portion of the land was gifted by respondent No. 4 to her grand son. It is further pleaded that respondent No. 4 was served with notice dated March 20, 2006 and in response thereto, she deposited a sum of Rs. 2,53,055 with the Assessing Authority on July 3, 2006. It is petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, who are responsible for payment of the dues, as they had been given the power of attorney to work on behalf of the firm by all other partners. Replications to the written statements have been filed and even rejoinder to the replication has also been filed by respondent No. 4 reiterating the plea taken by the respective parties in their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Saraswati Traders which was also run by Sh. Yogesh Goel as proprietor. Thus all assets and liabilities were taken by Smt. Bhagwan Devi Goel and even the benefit for a period of two years were availed by Smt. Bhagwan Devi Goel and her son. Not only this even a dryer plant was also installed by Smt. Bhagwan Devi Goel in the same premises in the year 1987-88 which was operational for a period of two years and now the operation is being carried out by change of name by depicting the sale, purchase and gift deed, etc., in the name of M/s. Gaurav Rice Mills. Pleadings of respondent No. 4: 5.. That the averments made and contention raised in para No. 5 of the writ petition are admitted only to the extent that a dryer plant was installed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 58 of the Act and further respondent No. 4 having disputed the factum of dissolution, the same being disputed questions of fact, but still we find force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that even if there were any dues against the firm, the same were required to be satisfied from the assets of the firm. Sufficient assets of the firm being available, the recovery of the amount due could very well be made from that. Respondent No. 4 did not have any authority to transfer the assets of the firm in case those had not come to her by way of dissolution holding her responsible for all assets and liabilities as on the date of dissolution and thereafter. In any case, the transfers made by respondent No. 4 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
