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 →

Saligram Ruplal Khanna & Anr Versus Kanwar Rajnath

1974 (5) TMI 118 - Supreme Court Of India

Civil Appeal No. 143 of 1969. - Dated:- 1-5-1974 - Khanna Hans Raj, Beg M. Hameedullah And Chandrachud Y.V., JJ. S. T. Desai, K. L. Hathi and P. C. Kapur for the appellants. K. S. Cooper, A. B. Diwan, Vasant Kotwal and I. N. Shroff for the respondent. JUDGMENT: Khanna Hans raj, This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court affirming on appeal the decision of the learned single Judge whereby a suit for dissolution of partnership and ren .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as a silk mill and the third was an oil and leather cloth factory with land, bungalows and shawls attached thereto. In addition to that, there was a bobbin factory at Taradeo with offices at Bombay, Ahmedabad and other places. For the sake of convenience the above property may be described, as it was done in the High Court, as "Ambernath Mills". Although the case involves a tangled skein of facts, the points which survive for determination in appeal are rather simple. The Ambernath Mil .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

377; 25,000 were contributed by each one of those persons in that connection. The appellants and the respondent too were members of the company. Appellant No. 1 and the respondent had migrated at the time of partition from Gujarat in West Punjab. The respondent was a big industrialist and left behind extensive properties in Pakistan. He held verified claim of rupees 23 lakhs in lieu of property left by him in West Pakistan. The first appellant had a verified claim of ₹ 22,000 in respect 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

ants. On August 30, 1952 two documents were executed. One of the documents was an agreement of partnership between the two appellants and the respondent for carrying on the business of Ambernath Mill s under the lease in the name and style of Shri Ambernath Mills Corporation. The other document was the agreement of lease executed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property as lessor and the appellants and the respondent carrying on business in partnership under the name and style of SAMCO, as lessees. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he breach of any condition on the part of the lessees or in the event of any dispute among the lessees resulting in the closure of the mills. it was also provided that the lessees would purchase and the lessor would sell to the lessees at an agreed price the stocks of raw materials, unsold finished goods, consumer s stores, spare parts, cars and trucks and other movables which had already been vested in the lessor, as well as three diesel generating sets purchased by the lessor. III the event 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

trators chosen by the parties by mutual consent. The annual rent payable by the lessees was fixed at ₹ 6,00,000 payable in four quarterly instalments of Rs, 1,50000 each on or before 30th day of each quarter. The lessees also undertook to deposit or furnish bank guarantee in the, sum of ₹ 7.00,000 as security for the payment of the value of raw material, unsold finished goods,, stores. spare parts and other articles. Clauses 17 to 21 of the agreement of lease read as under : "17 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uisition by the lessees of the full proprietary interest in the demised premises in the manner shown in the next succeeding paragraph. 18.The Lessees, being all displaced persons from Pakistan and having left large properties in Pakistan, have all of them put in claims in respect of their proper-ties and other assets left by them in Pakistan under the Displaced Persons Claims Act, 1950. When the claims under the said Act of the Lessees are verified and determined and compensation payable in resp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the demised premises as assessed, the Lessor shall convey the demised premises absolutely to them as full proprietors thereof, their interest in the demised premises being in proportion to the compensation payable to each of the Lessees and the respective shares in the proprietary interest shall be adjusted according to the amount of compensation payable to each as finally determined. 19.In case the aggregate amount of compensation payable by the Government of India to the Lessees exceeds th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ns who have left industrial concerns in Pakistan, so that the total compensation payable to the Lessees and the others thus associated is equivalent to the total value of the demised premises and the said demised premises shall then become the absolute property of the Lessees and others thus associated in proportion to the total compensation payable to each as finally determined. 21.The lease to be granted pursuance hereto shall be liable to determination earlier on the settlement of the claims .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

itions and yearly rent prescribed here- under, the yearly rent being adjusted proportionately to the extent of the proprietary interest allotted and transferred to the Lessees." According to the partnership agreement executed by the two appellants and the respondent on August 30, 1952, each partner had agreed to contribute a capital of ₹ 1,00,000. The amount of ₹ 25,000 already paid by each partner to the Custodian was regarded as part payment of the capital of rupees one lakh. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

imited liability company for running the business of the partnership with the consent of the Custodian and the appellants agreed to join the company as shareholders on such terms and conditions as might be agreed when such company was formed. The period of the partnership was five years "being the period of said lease". The partnership took possession of Amberath Mills on August 31, 1952. The respondent directed the first appellant to be incharge of the administration of the mills at 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

es 30 lakhs. The Custodian called upon the partnership in April 1953 to pay a sum of rupees 7 lakhs or to furnish a bank guarantee for the said amount as provided in the agreement of lease. This payment could not be made by the partnership. There was also difficulty in paying the sixth instalment of the rent. A cheque for ₹ 1,50,000 was issued but the same was dishonored. Subsequently, arrangements were made to pay ₹ 1,00,000. An amount of ₹ 5,0,000 out of the sixth instalment .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed by the Custodian. In the meantime, the second appellant sent letter dated February 8, 1954 to the respondent suggesting that his share in the partnership be reduced to 1 anna in a rupee or to such other fraction as the respondent thought fit. A similar letter was addressed by the first appellant. On February 24, 1954 the parties entered into a second agree- ment of partnership. It was agreed in the new partnership agreement that the share of the first appellant would be 3 annas and that of th .....

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 profits and losses for that period were to be distributed accordingly. The capital of the partnership was agreed to be arranged by the respondent and he was to be the managing partner in control of the entire affairs of the partnership. He was also to get interest at 6 per cent on all finances arranged by him. The appellants agreed to carry on such duties in the concern as might be assigned to them by the respondent. The period of the partnership was to be "the Outstanding period of th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

estraining the Custodian from dispossessing the respondent and the appellants from Ambernath Mills. Appeal against the decision of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court was then filed in this Court. The Custodian of Evacuee Property made an order on May 25, 1954 cancelling the agreement of lease of Amberanath Mills dated August 30, 1952. The possession of the mills was voluntarily delivered by, the partnership to the Custodian on June 30, 1954. Representations were made on behalf of SAMCO 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

1955 the Central Government issued notification under section 12 of that Act acquiring the Ambernath Mills. An advertisement was then issued by the Central Government for the sale of Ambernath Mills. Tenders for the purchase of the mills were required to be submitted by July 9, 1955. On June 7, 1955 a representation was made by SAMCO that in view of the pendency of its appeal in the Supreme Court in respect of the Custodian s notice for cancellation of the lease, the Ambernath Mills should not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e partnership in this Court against the judgment of the Bombay High Court was dismissed by this Court on November 10, 1955 vide reported case Rai Bahadur Kanwar Raj Nath & Ors. v. Pramod C. Bhatt, Custodian of Evacuee Property([1955] 2 S.C.R. 977). This Court held that the Custodian had the power of cancelling the lease under section 12 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act and that the notice issued by the Custodian was valid. This Court, however, left open the question whether 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

partnership thereafter withdrew its subsequent offer of purchase of the mills for ₹ 75,00,000. On January 31, 1956 a suit was filed on behalf of the partnership against the Custodian and the Central Government for permanent injunction restraining them from selling Ambernath Mills to any person other than the partners. The said suit was dismissed by the City Civil Court Bombay on October 8, 1956. An appeal was thereupon filed by SAMCO against the decision of the City Civil Court. This appea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

further held that the Central Government by virtue of notification dated March 10, 1955 acquired the mills free from all encumbrances and that such right as SAMCO might have had of specific performance of agreement of sale was in the nature of an encumbrance. The Central Government, according to the Division Bench, must be deemed to have acquired the mills free from that encumbrance. No appeal was filed against the above decision of the Bombay High Court. The respondent, it would appear, starte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aid either in cash or by adjustment of net compensation payable to the respondent or to other displaced persons who might assign their verified claim in favour of the respondent. A further sum of ₹ 28,00,000 was to be paid within three months from the date of the agreement either in cash or by adjustment of the net compensation payable to displaced persons who assigned their verified claims in favour of the respondent. The balance of ₹ 20,11,00,0 was to be paid in seven equal install .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pellant executed an agreement for the transfer of his compensation claim amounting to ₹ 6,994. The amount was to be repaid to the first appellant within three years with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. It was stated in the agreement that the respondent was contemplating to form a joint stock company to own, run and manage the mills. The respondent agreed that in the event of such a company being formed the first appellant would have the option to purchase shares of the said c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

todian against the partnership be settled at ₹ 18,00,000. A consent award awarding ₹ 18,00,000 in favour of the Custodian against the partnership was made by Mr. Morarji Desai on the following day, viz., November 14, 1957. The award was made a rule of the court on May, 1, 1958. The respondent was unable to submit to the Central Government compensation claims to the extent of ₹ 30,00,000 within three months of the agreement dated August 14, 1957. By April 1959 he submitted compe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ould be paid by the respondent in seven annual installments. A second supplemental agreement was executed by the President and the respondent on April 6, 1960, but we are not concerned with that. On April 21, 1960 the grant of the Ambernath Mills was made by the President to the respondent. The same day the respondent executed in favour of the President a mortgage of the Ambernath Mills for the payment of ₹ 48,11,000. The sum was payable in seven equal annual installments. On April 22, 196 .....

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 of account and in September 1960 a cheque for ₹ 204 was sent to him by way of interest. On October 7, 1960 the first appellant sent a letter to the respondent complaining that his property had been attached in execution of a decree for ₹ 271.44 which had been obtained by a creditor against SAMCO. In this letter the first appellant hinted that he was a partner of the respondent. The respondent in response sent to the first appellant a cheque for ₹ 271.44. It is also stated .....

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 partnership should be continued for the purpose of acquiring on behalf and for the benefit of the said partnership the properties Ex. 1 (Ambernath Mills) hereto and to exploit the said industries". The respondent was stated to have made a representation that he was acquiring the Ambernath Mills on behalf of the partnership and that the agreement had been executed in the respondent s name because the Central Government desired to deal with only one individual. It was also stated that th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e stated to be for the benefit of the partnership also. In the plaint, as it was initially filed, the appellants prayed for a declaration that the partnership between them and the respondent was still subsisting on the terms and conditions set out in partnership deed dated February 24, 1954 excepting the terms relating to the period of partnership. Prayer was made for a declaration that the Ambernath Mills belonged to the partnership and for rendition of the partnership accounts. By a subsequent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

after those payments were made the partnership did not have sufficient funds to pay to the remaining creditors. With regard to the negotiations for the acquisition of the mills, the respondent stated that the first appellant was aware that Ambernath Mills were being acquired by the respondent for himself alone. The respondent denied that he ever told the first appellant that the amount of earnest money of ₹ 2,00,000 for the purchase of the Ambernath Mills had been paid out of funds belongi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

have been dissolved. Learned trial judge held that the appellants had failed to prove that there was an oral agreement between the parties on or about May 25, 1954. It was further held that there was no agreement, express or implied, to form a partnership for acquiring the mills and for carrying on the business thereon. The appellants were held not entitled to have the mills treated as partnership assets by invoking principles enunciated in section 88 of the Indian Trusts Act, to which 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

permanent injunction was finally dismissed in appeal by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court or on August 30, 1957 when the period of the lease came to an end. In appeal before the Division Bench the following four contentions were advanced on behalf of the appellants : "(1) that on 25th May 1954 the parties expressly agreed to continue their partnership for acquiring the Mills and exploiting them, that a partnership at will thus came into existence between them, and that therefore th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ated above, the rights acquired by the defendant as a result of his agreement with the President of India dated 14th August 1957 and the subsequent Presidential grant are impressed with a trust in favour of the partnership under section 88 of the Indian Trusts Act; and (4)that, even if it is held that the Mills are no longer an asset of the partnership, the plaintiffs are still entitled to accounts of the partnership which admittedly existed between them and the defendant for working the Mills u .....

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 Supreme Court. The present suit for rendition of accounts brought on December 20, 1960 more than three years after the date of the dissolution of the partnership was held to be barred by limitation. In the result the appeal was dismissed. In appeal before us Mr. S.T. Desai on behalf of the appellants has frankly, conceded that he is not in a position to challenge the concurrent findings of the trial judge and the appellate bench that the appellants had failed to prove that on May 25, 1954 th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ced by him on that score. Mr. Desai has, however, challenged the finding of the trial judge and the appellate bench that no implied agreement as alleged by the appellants could be inferred from the material on record. The main burden of the arguments of Mr. Desai, however, has been that the appellants were entitled to the accounts of the partnership which admittedly existed between the parties as per partnership agreements dated August 30, 1952 and, February 24, 1954. According to Mr. Desai, 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

record. In this respect Mr. Desai has submitted that the appellants no longer claim any interest in the ownership of Ambernath Mills which. now vest in the respondent. It is, however, urged that an agreement can be inferred from the conduct of the parties that Ambernath Mills were to be run by the respondent in partnership with the appellants, even though the ownership of the same might vest in the respondent. In this connection we find that no case of such an implied agreement was set up in 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

appellants and the respondent but of all persons who were to be associated with the lessees in the ownership of the proprietary interest in proportion to the total compensation payable to each of them. The agreement of lease further contemplated that the lessee rights of the two appellants and the respondent were to be distinct from the proprietary interest in the demised premises and that the lessees were at liberty, in spite of the transfer of proprietary interest, to continue the lease for 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

ons whose claims were submitted, There are two documents which run counter to the stand taken oil behalf of the appellants in this Court that there was an implied agreement that in case the respondent acquired the ownership of the mills, the mills would be worked by the respondent in partnership with the appellants. One of those documents is agreement dated September 20, 1957 which was signed by the first appellant and the respondent a day before the respondent executed bond in favour of that 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

o the extent of 50 per cent of the amount of the adjusted claim compensation. In case the option was exercised in favour of the purchase of the shares of the company, the respondent was to ensure that the said shares would be allotted to the first appellant at par. It was further agreed that if the shares applied for or any proportion thereof were not allotted to the first appellant by the said company, the respondent would not in any way be liable to the first appellant on that account. In 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

that in case he promoted a company for owning, running and managing of the Ambernath Mills, the first appellant would get a share of the value of half of his ,claim compensation of ₹ 6,994. The said amount when compared to the price of Ambernath Mills was wholly insignificant. No question could arise for the respondent borrowing money from the first appellant for payment of price of the mills in case the acquisition of the mills was for the benefit of the respondent as well as the appellan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e first appellant was no more in picture. The above letter shows that the first appellant repudiated his liability for the payment of the sales tax by disclaiming his connection with the ,business in question. Our attention has been invited by Mr. Desai to the following observations contained in the judgment of the appellate bench : "There is no dispute between the parties that the partners met on 25th May 1954, after the Custodian s order terminating the Agreement of lease and decided 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

acquiring the proprietary interest in the Mills, the business of the Mills should be carried on in partnership between the parties. It is the defendant s case that the proprietary interest in the Mills was sought to reacquired by the partners for certain incidental advantages but that it was never intended that the Mills after acquisition should be run in partnership under the terms agreed in the partnership deed of 24th February 1954." The above observations may have some bearing on the q .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ar as the question is concerned as to whether the claim for rendition of accounts was within time, we find that according to clause 16 of the partnership deed dated August 30, 1952 the period of partnership was fixed at five years, being the period of the lease, Clause 17 of the deed of partnership dated February 24, 1954 provided that the "period of partnership shall be the outstanding period of such lease". The possession of Ambernath Mills under the agreement of lease was delivered .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tuted for a fixed term, by the expiry of that term; (b) if constituted to carry out one or more adventures or undertakings by the completion thereof; (c) by the death of a partner; and (d) by the adjudication of a partner as an insolvent." The above provision makes it clear that unless some contract between the partners to the contrary is proved, the firm if constituted for a fixed term would be dissolved by the expiry of that term. If the firm is constituted to carry out one or more advent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

stodian served notice on the respondent and the two appellants to show cause why the agreement of lease should not be cancelled in accordance with the terms of that agreement on account of the breach of conditions in the matter of payment of instalment of rent and the failure of the respondent and the appellants to deposit or furnish bank guarantee for the amount of ₹ 7,00,000. The respondent and the appellants challenged the validity of the above notice by means of a writ petition and, th .....

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 the lease issued by the Custodian. After the above judgment of this Court, whatever hope or expectation the partners of SAMCO had of running Ambernath Mills on lease under the agreement of lease dated August 30, 1952 came to an end and were extinguished. In the meantime, as already stated earlier, the possession of Ambernath Mills was handed over by the partners of SAMCO to the ,Custodian on June, 30, 1954. On March 10, 1955 the Central Government issued notification under section 12 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

selling the Ambernath Mills to any person other than the partners of SAMCO. The suit was dismissed by the City Civil Court and the appeal filed by the partners of SAMCO too was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court on January 14, 1957. The Division Bench held that the agreement of purchase contained in clauses 17 to 21 of the agreement of lease was indefinite and vague and such agreement of sale was not capable of specific performance. It was further held that in View of notifi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ashed to the ground. View was expressed by the learned trial judge that the firm of SAMCO stood dissolved on May 25, 1954 when the lease was cancelled. Another date of dissolution, according to the learned judge, could be January 14, 1957 when the suit filed by the partners of that firm against the Custodian and the Central Government for permanent injunction was finally dismissed by the High Court. The appellate bench expressed the view that the firm of SAMCO stood dissolved on November 10, 195 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

c and is not of much significance, because in any event in the absence of a contract to the contrary there could be no survival of the firm after August 30, 1957 when the period of partnership expired. Calculating the period of limitation even from that date, the suit for rendition of accounts brought by the appellants on December 20, 1960 was barred by limitation. It is not disputed that the period of limitation for such a suit is three years from the date of dissolution. Mr. Desai has referred .....

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 statement, in our opinion, would not militate against the inference that the firm stood subsequently dissolved on August 30, 1957. As already mentioned above, no agreement to keep the firm in existence after the expiry of the fixed period of partnership has been proved on the record. Reference has also been made on behalf of the appellants to the consent given by the respondent on behalf of SAMCO on November 13, 1957 to the award of ₹ 18,00,000, by Mr. Morarji Desai in favour of the C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ther movables as well as about the arrears of rent. Counter-claim had also been made by SAMCO against the Custodian for a sum of ₹ 17,67,080 as per written statement dated December 18, 1956 filed in arbitration proceedings. The consent which was given by the respondent on November 13, 1957 was with a view to get the dispute between SAMCO with the Custodian finally settled. This was a necessary step for the purpose of winding up the affairs of SAMCO and to complete transaction of arbitratio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uot;transaction" in section 47 refers not merely to commercial transaction of purchase and sale but would include also all other matters relating to the affairs of the partnership. The completion of a transaction would cover also the taking of necessary steps in connection with the adjudication of a dispute to which a firm before its dissolution is a party. The legal position in this respect has been stated on page 251 of Lindley on Partnership (Thirteenth Edition) as under: "Notwithst .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sufficient, and that he can withdraw a deposit or sell the partnership assets, or pledge them for the purpose of completing a transaction already commenced, or of securing a debt already incurred, or the over-draft on the partnership current account at the bank." The proposition, in our opinion, cannot be disputed that after dissolution, the partnership subsists merely for the purpose of completing pending transactions, winding up the business, and adjusting the rights of the partners; and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ution does not necessarily follow because a partnership has ceased to do business would not be of any material help to the appellants because we are not basing our conclusion of the dissolution of the firm of the parties upon the fact that the partnership bad ceased to do business. On the contrary, we have arrived at the above conclusion in accordance with the principle of law that a firm constituted for a fixed term shall stand dissolved, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, on the exp .....

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