9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 823X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dorsement. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.4 - Vasudev son of Ramachandra Desai, his younger brother, created a partnership firm in respect of the CL-9 licence for M/s. Status Bar and Restaurant, Gandhinagar, Bangalore, of which the petitioner was the proprietor earlier and in the said partnership deed - Annexure `A' dated 1st April, 2002, the profit sharing ratio of the present petitioner was reduced to 2% and remaining 98% to the younger brother - Vasudev. But however in pursuance of the said partnership deed of 2002, the respondent No.4 - Mr. Vasudev, applied before the Deputy Commissioner of Excise only in the year 2013 for transfer of the said CL-9 licence from that of the proprietorship of the present pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not ready to withdraw himself absolutely from the partnership of M/s. Status Bar and Restaurant and wanted to retain at least 2% share in it, though agreed to be a dormant partner and allowing the control of business exclusively in the hands of the 4th respondent. Annexure `A' to writ petition is the Deed of Partnership entered between the parties under these circumstances. The recital in the said deed itself states that the business of M/s. Status Bar and Restaurant was actually carried on by the 4th respondent and not by the petitioner. Clauses 13, 18 and 19 of the said Annexure `A' clearly reflect the intention of parties in entering into that arrangement. Even though this arrangement was entered into between the parties in the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the partnership firm in accordance with the partnership deed dated 1st April, 2002, even though such an application was filed by the said firm belatedly in the year 2013, since the respondent - firm undertook and paid the requisite transfer fees and other due charges of the Respondent - Excise Department. If the petitioner has any partnership dispute with the respondent No.4, the remedy for him lies before the Civil Court and this is not an appropriate forum for the said purpose and the petitioner cannot seek to stall the transfer of licence in favour of the said partnership firm. The said transfer has already been effected way back in the year 2014 by the impugned endorsement and the same has been upheld by the Tribunal. 8. This Court do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
