Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Ramanjot Singh Versus State of Punjab and others

2016 (4) TMI 286 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Whether “Ramanjot Singh Dhuri & Company” and “Ramanjot Singh & Company Dhuri” is the one and same firm or different entities - The petitioner is doing business under the name and style of “M/s Ramanjot Singh and Company Dhuri” and a partnership deed was executed in which the petitioner and private respondents are partners and the name and style of partnership business is mentioned as “M/s Ramanjot Singh Dhuri & Company” - Held that:- petitioner had moved application, which is signed by petitione .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tners of the applicant. Even on those photos there are no cross signatures nor their names have been mentioned. There is no explanation as to why the photo of actual applicant i.e. Ramanjot Singh has not been annexed. The learned counsel for the respondents failed to explain the purpose of such photos when they have not signed the application. By affixing photos on the application, an attempt appears to have been made to project them as applicants.

The said application was given on 23 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

respondents and the name and style of the partnership firm has been mentioned as “M/s Ramanjot Singh Dhuri & Company” and it apparently appears to be altogether different entity as the applicant is “M/s Ramanjot Singh & Company Dhuri” not “M/s Ramanjot Singh Dhuri & Company”.

Whether respondent No.4 could issue a letter to the Senior Superintendent of Police for restraining the petitioner from carrying out its business on the application of private respondents and under what authority .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bility which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The action of respondent No.4 and other officials in supporting the private respondents is against the law and is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of petitioner - CWP No. 2089 of 2016 (O&M) - Dated:- 28-3-2016 - MR. PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, J. For The Petitioner : Mr. M.S. Khaira, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. B.S. Sewak, Advocate, For The Respondent : Mr. S.S. Chandumajra, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate, Mr. H.N.S Gill, Advocate .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

been sought to respondents No. 4 to 11 not to interfere in the day to day running of retail sale at the liquor vends as respondents No. 5 to 11 have forcibly taken over the possession of the liquor vends with the support of respondent No.4-S.P. Pahuja, Excise & Taxation Officer, Barnala. Brief facts of the case are that the State of Punjab has framed the Excise Policy in the year 2015-2016. As per Excise Policy, the petitioner, who is working under the name and style of Ramanjot Singh & .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on Commissioner on the application of respondents No. 5 to 11 to the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Barnala. The said letter apparently appears to have been issued for extraneous reason and not as per the documents on the office file. In pursuance of notice of motion, parties appeared and filed their respective replies. Respondent No. 4 has filed specific reply that he was Excise and Taxation Officer of District Barnala. In the reply it is averred that the matter relates to the functioning of liq .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ecurity and the remaining amount in 9 installments prescribed in Rule 36 of the Punjab Liquor License Rules, 1956. It is further averred in reply that Ramanjot Singh along with some other persons submitted an application for grant of licence under the name and style of firm Ramanjot Singh and Company . Copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure R-1 with the reply of respondent No.4. A perusal of Annexure R-1 shows that it has been signed by only one Ramanjot Singh, however, there is reference .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt No. 11 by way of affidavit was taken on record, in which he says that he is neither partner nor has any concern with M/s Ramanjot Singh & Company, Dhuri, whose proprietor is the petitioner. Respondent No. 4 S.P. Pahuja, ETO Barnala has been instigating respondents No. 5 to 9 to forcibly and illegally take over the vends for which petitioner has licence and also refer to the letter dated 30.10.2015, Annexure P-3 issued by the Assistant Excise and Tax Commissioner, Barnala. Other averments .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the application dated 23.03.2015 (Annexure R-5/1) has been annexed. They have also admitted that licence fee from 1.4.2014 to 31.3.2015 was fixed as ₹ 6,73,98,645/- . They also rely upon the partnership deed dated 01.04.2015 and reference to the challan receipt Annexure P-6 has also been made, which are alleged to have been paid by Hardev Singh, respondent No.5. and Hardev Singh, respondent No. 9. the averments are with regard to the complaint filed by respondents No. 5 to 11, which is o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dated 30.10.2015 to the Senior Superintendent of Police Barnala that that the liquor vends of MC Dhanaula group for the year 2015-2016 have been allotted to M/s Ramanjot Singh and Company Dhuri for ₹ 11,49,70,745/-, the 10 % security of which was deposited in the month of March 2015. The monthly Government fee comes to around ₹ 90 lacs. After scrutiny of the whole record, Excise and Taxation Officer Dhanaula has reported that Ramanjot Singh is the son of Surinder Singh Dhuri Ex. MLA .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y Hardev Singh and other partners, however, Ramanjot Singh has not deposited any amount. Also for the month of October no money has been deposited by Ramanjot Singh and rather he has been threatening other partners by bringing goons with arms. In the letter it was also mentioned that SHO PS Dhanuala may be directed to stop Ramanjot Singh immediately and the Government property be protected and case be registered against above mentioned person under different provisions of IPC so that Government .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

moved and they did not want any action against Ramanjot Singh. In view of the compromise deed and statements of applicants, SHO PS Dhanaula submitted that no action is required to be taken by the police and the application was recommended to be filed. The contents of para on merit have been denied and at some places it has been mentioned as a matter of record. There is general denial to the various paragraphs of the writ petition. In reply another affidavit of Amrik Singh son of Natha Singh R\o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y Ramanjot Singh, the present petitioner alone. The perusal of application (Annexure R-1) annexed with the reply of respondent No. 4 clearly reveals that it is given by Ramanjot Singh his name and signature and contact number have been given, however, on the said application three photographs are annexed but name of the persons in photographs have not been mentioned, reference to the photocopy of the application annexed with the reply has been made. The said application has also been annexed as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The said document has been signed on 27.3.2015 where he has been referred to as successful bidder. The sum and substance of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was the petitioner alone who had moved the application and the alleged partners have nothing to do with the issuance of license and transaction of business. The inter se dispute between partners with reference to the partnership deed can be settled in appropriate proceedings either by way of arbitration or in a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to 11. It is pleaded that alleged compromise is under duress and is in Police Station. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner made reference to the signatures on the letter written to the SSP and the signature on the reply of respondent No.4. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No. 5 to 11 submitted that they are partners of the firm and a partnership deed has been annexed. He has made reference to Annexure R-5/2, which is dated 1.4.2015. The identity of the said firm has been m .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or the State vehemently contended that letter has been written in good faith to protect the rights of the State Government. He further contended that Excise Department has conducted an inquiry. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 vehemently contended that he has issued letter in good faith to protect the rights of State Government which has been written after enquiry. Although the letter has been written in the name of Assistant Excise Taxation Commissioner, Barnala but it has been signed by res .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

moved by the petitioner to the Excise Department under his own signatures and the license in Form L-14A for retail sale of Punjab Medium Liquor (PML) including beer for consumption off the premises was issued for excise circle Dhanaula vide Annexure P-1. Further license in Form L-2 for retail sale of Indian made Foreign Liquor (including IMFL, beer, wine and cider) for consumption off the premises for excise circle Dhanaula was issued vide Annexure P-2. The application was moved by Ramanjot Sin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and style of partnership business is mentioned as M/s Ramanjot Singh Dhuri & Company . The question of their photos on the application does not arise as on that date there was no partnership firm. Now the question arises, whether Ramanjot Singh Dhuri & Company and Ramanjot Singh & Company Dhuri is the one and same firm or different entities? The perusal of record of the Excise Department annexed with the reply of respondent No.4 and other official respondents clearly indicates that p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

otos on the application of three persons do not make them applicants and partners of the applicant. Even on those photos there are no cross signatures nor their names have been mentioned. There is no explanation as to why the photo of actual applicant i.e. Ramanjot Singh has not been annexed. The learned counsel for the respondents failed to explain the purpose of such photos when they have not signed the application. By affixing photos on the application, an attempt appears to have been made to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

record as Annexure R-3. Respondent No.4 who has been impleaded by name has annexed Annexure R-1 partnership deed executed between the petitioner and private respondents and the name and style of the partnership firm has been mentioned as M/s Ramanjot Singh Dhuri & Company and it apparently appears to be altogether different entity as the applicant is M/s Ramanjot Singh & Company Dhuri not M/s Ramanjot Singh Dhuri & Company . Now it is also relevant to refer that the claim of the priv .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

suffer from the following disabilities: - (i) No suit against other partners and firm - In case of a dispute that arises between two partners or between a partner and a firm, a partner of an unregistered firm cannot file a suit against any of his fellow partners (present or past) or the firm, to enforce his right arising out of a contract or conferred by the Act. (ii) No suit by the firm against third parties - An unregistered firm or its partners cannot file a suit against third parties to enfo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

it against the firm. (ii) The partners of the firm can file a suit for: (i) dissolution of a firm; (ii) accounts of the dissolved firm; and (iii) realize the property of the dissolved firm. (iii) Right to set-off where the claim does not exceed ₹ 100/-. (iv) The official assignee or received of Court may bring an action to realize the property of an insolvent partner. Under Section 69 of the Act for sharing of assets and liability of firm by partners no suit lies unless the firm is registe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t be entered into in the course of business dealings. The constitution of firm, which is not registered and the names of the partners are not reflected in the register of firms and the rights of such partners will not flow as a member of specific firm when the entities are altogether different. Now another question arises as to whether respondent No.4 could issue a letter to the Senior Superintendent of Police for restraining the petitioner from carrying out its business on the application of pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

een given by various persons addressed to the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, bears the signatures of private respondents and mentions that some fraud has been committed by Ramanjot Singh & Company. From this, it is also clear that they are not claiming any right over Ramanjot Singh & Company rather they are claiming their rights independently. All the amounts have been paid by the petitioner in the name of Ramanjot Singh & Company and not in the name of Ramanjot Singh Dh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bility. Further during the course of arguments it has been pointed out that respondent No.4 has played a fraud upon the Court as well as police also. The signatures on the written statement, affidavit and other documents on the record of this Court attested by ETO, Excise, Barnala - respondent No.4 are different than the signature on the letter written to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Barnala. The letter written in the name of Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner has been allegedly .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

orruption Act for forgery and fabricating a document and for misuse of official power. This clearly indicates that respondent No.4 has exceeded his jurisdiction for extraneous reasons in addressing the said letter to SSP. The SSP shall be at liberty to apply to this Court for comparing the signatures of respondent No.4 on the documents filed in this Court and the letter written to SSP Barnala. The needful shall be done within one month from today and report shall be submitted to this Court. The .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version