New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

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

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

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion 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 project them as ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nership 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 No.4 could issue a letter to the Senior Superintendent of Police for restraining the petitioner from carrying out its business on the ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ication against all the settled principles of law and liability 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., Punj .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nexure P-1 and P-2, respectively). Further direction has 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

licensee was required to deposit 10 % of the amount as security 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 signe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hallan and deposits have been annexed . Reply of respondent 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 Assista .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Singh and Amrik Son of Rogan Singh are attached. A copy of 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 t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

xation 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ment fees for the month of September has been deposited by 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 per .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

effect that the misunderstanding between them has been removed 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

9 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 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 appr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is protecting the rights of the private respondents No. 5 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ners mentioned in the partnership deed. Learned counsel for 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 Tax .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 vid .....

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 Excise Circle Dhanaula, District Barnala and the name 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. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion signature is only of Ramanjot Singh. Mere affixing photos 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 .....

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 Ramanjot Singh & Company, which has been placed on 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 . No .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ection 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 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 .....

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 affect the following: (i) The third party can file a suit 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ontract must be by the firm with a third party and it must 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 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

ase. 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 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

ication against all the settled principles of law and liability. 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 Assis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

te action under the provisions of IPC and Prevention of Corruption 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 fro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version