9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the suit against the firm without the consent of the Central Government under Section 86 read with Section 87-B of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Validity of the decree against the firm and its execution against the partners. 3. Defenses available to the appellants in an application under Order 21, Rule 50(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Competence of the Suit Against the Firm: The appellants contended that the suit against the firm of Jagatsons International Corporation was incompetent in the absence of the requisite consent under Section 86 read with Section 87-B of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court noted that the Maharaja of Sirmur, being a Ruler of a former Indian State, required the Central Government's consent for any suit to be instituted against him. Since such consent was not obtained, the suit against the Maharaja of Sirmur was barred, rendering the decree against him null and void. However, the court emphasized that the suit against the firm, excluding the Maharaja of Sirmur, was competent. The decree should be amended to reflect this exclusion, making it valid against the other partners and the partnership property. 2. Validity of the Decree and Its Execution: The court addressed the second contention by stating that while the decree against the Maharaja of Sirmur was a nullity, the decree against the other partners of the firm was valid. The court clarified that a suit against a firm is essentially a suit against all its partners. Therefore, a decree against the firm is a decree against all partners, except those who cannot be adjudged debtors, such as the Maharaja of Sirmur in this case. The court concluded that the decree could be executed against the partnership property and the other partners by following the procedure under Order 21, Rule 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Defenses Available in an Application Under Order 21, Rule 50(2): The appellants argued that they should be allowed to dispute their liability on all grounds raised in their affidavit. The court held that in an application under Order 21, Rule 50(2), the primary question is whether the person against whom the decree is sought to be executed was a partner of the firm when the cause of action accrued. The respondent may question the decree on grounds of collusion, fraud, or the like, but not to the extent of having the suit retried. The court found that the appellants did not sufficiently raise a plea of collusion or fraud against respondent No. 1. Allegations of dishonesty and fraudulent concealment were made against a partner, Shib Chander Kumar, but no such allegations were made against respondent No. 1. Consequently, the appellants were not entitled to raise these defenses in the application. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal with costs, affirming that the decree, suitably amended to exclude the Maharaja of Sirmur, was valid and executable against the partnership property and the other partners. The appellants' contentions were rejected, and the application under Order 21, Rule 50(2) was deemed maintainable.
|
