TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 23.03.2015 and the partnership deed is of 01.04.2015 meaning thereby there was no partnership existing between the petitioner and private respondents and the licenses have been issued only in pursuance of the application dated 23.03.2015 and the fee was also deposited under the same name and the Income Tax Department account number is also issued in the name of Ramanjot Singh & Company, Respondent No.4 who has been impleaded by name has 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”. Whether respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ures P-1 and P-2) have been issued in the name of Ramanjot Singh Company Dhuri which are valid upto 31.03.2016 and in pursuance of the same, the petitioner is doing business but respondent No. 4 issued a letter dated 30.10.2015 (Annexure P-3) under his signatures in the name of Assistant Excise and Taxation 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 liquor vends of Dhanaula Group of District Barnala for the year 2015-2016 (Licensing Unit Code No. 38U3/1-6) and the group comprises of 6 (L-14A) country liquor vends and 6 IMFL (L-2) vends in the area of Dhanaula Municipal Council and 17 (L14-A) liquor vends and 7 (L-2) vends in the rural area of this Excise circle. The license for the group was granted for annual license fees of ₹ 8,9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 on record as Annexure R-5/4 and reference to the FIR No. 42 dated 12.06.2012 and two other FIRs have also been made. Another application has been made to the SHO - Sukhdev Singh and another by Hardev Singh. Reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 has also been filed and it has been stated that true facts of the case are that on the basis of a joint complaint submitted by the partners of liquor vends of MC Dhanaula, Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner Barnala wrote a letter No. 863/Excise 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contends that the application was moved on 23.03.2015 under the name and style of M/s Ramanjot Singh and Company by 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 Annexure R-5/1, which bears the photographs of three persons, their name are also not mentioned against the photograph. Though the application has been signed by Ramanjot Singh, applicant has been shown as Ramanjot Singh and Company, Ward No. 108, H.No. 3, Dhuri and the Income Tax Account number has also been given as AAPFR4536H. Even the document is signed by the ETO(X) and AETC as well as ETI, which is placed on the paper book at page 189 clearly mention the name of Ramanjot Singh and Company. The said document has been signed on 27.3.2015 where he has been referred to as suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it has been signed by respondent No.4. This letter was not issued in any extraneous consideration rather with bona fide belief to protect the rights of the State Government so that there may not be any revenue loss to the State Government for the activities of the petitioner. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have perused the record. The petitioner is doing business under the name and style of M/s Ramanjot Singh and Company Dhuri and the application was 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 Singh and with the application no partnership deed was annexed, however, allegedly it is the case of respondents, specifically respondents No.5 to 11 that they had enter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 private respondents is based on partnership deed dated 01.04.2015, and no document indicating the registration of the firm has been annexed with the written statements. Although, registration of firm is optional there is no penalty on nonregistration of firms but an unregistered firm is burdened with certain disabilities. Reference in this regard can be made to Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 (for short 'the Act'). In view of Section 69 of the Act, the firm as well as its partner(s) 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the license has been issued on the application of Ramanjot Singh in the name of M/s Ramanjot Singh Company, Dhuri to a different entity which has no relationship with the firm which has been constituted vide Annexure R-5, which is unregistered and provisions of Section 69 of the Act are applicable in the present case. Furthermore, the the letter Annexure P-6 which has been 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 Dhuri Company. Be that as it may, the fact remains that there is no relationship between the Punjab Excise Department and the private respondents. The relationship of the Punjab Excise Department is with M/s Ramanjot Singh Company through Ramanjot Singh sole proprietor. Respondent No.4 in connivance with the private responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
