2016 (4) TMI 286 - HC - Indian Laws

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 - petitioner had moved application, which is signed by petitioner Ramanjot Singh alone, however, over it three photographs have been annexed which do not bear the signatures of anyone. The photographs have been annexed to indicate that photos of three persons on application means that they are applicants in the application. There is no photo of Ramanjot Singh on the application, only photos are of three persons. On the application 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 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 No.4 could issue a letter to the Senior Superintendent of Police for restraining the petitioner from carrying out its business on the application of private respondents and under what authority he is proceeding to issue such a letter/notice - Held 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 respondents has issued impugned letter to Senior Superintendent of Police for extraneous reasons without any justification 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

Issues Involved:
1. Issuance of protection for business operations.
2. Legitimacy of partnership claims.
3. Legality of the letter issued by Excise and Taxation Officer.
4. Jurisdiction and authority of Excise and Taxation Officer.
5. Allegations of fraud and forgery by respondent No. 4.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Issuance of Protection for Business Operations:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct respondents No. 1 to 3 to provide protection for carrying on the business of retail sale of Punjab Medium Liquor (PML) and Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) from his licensed shops. The petitioner also requested that respondents No. 4 to 11 be restrained from interfering in the daily operations of these liquor vends, which they allegedly took over forcibly with the support of respondent No. 4.

2. Legitimacy of Partnership Claims:
The petitioner, operating under "M/s Ramanjot Singh & Company, Dhuri," applied for and was granted licenses. Respondents No. 5 to 11 claimed to be partners in the firm based on a partnership deed dated 01.04.2015. However, the court noted discrepancies, such as the absence of the petitioner's photograph on the application and the lack of signatures on the photographs of the alleged partners. The court emphasized that the application was solely signed by the petitioner, and the partnership deed was executed after the application date, indicating no partnership existed at the time of application.

3. Legality of the Letter Issued by Excise and Taxation Officer:
Respondent No. 4 issued a letter to the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) based on a complaint from respondents No. 5 to 11, alleging fraud by the petitioner. The court found this action to be beyond the jurisdiction of respondent No. 4, as the letter was issued without any legal basis and appeared to be for extraneous reasons.

4. Jurisdiction and Authority of Excise and Taxation Officer:
The court questioned the authority of respondent No. 4 to issue such a letter to the SSP. It was determined that respondent No. 4 had no right to interfere with the petitioner's business operations or to protect the interests of private respondents by addressing the SSP. The court highlighted that the relationship of the Punjab Excise Department was solely with "M/s Ramanjot Singh & Company, Dhuri," and not with any partnership firm claimed by the private respondents.

5. Allegations of Fraud and Forgery by Respondent No. 4:
The court noted discrepancies in the signatures of respondent No. 4 on different documents, suggesting possible forgery. The court directed the SSP to investigate the matter and take appropriate action under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. The court also imposed a cost of ?25,000 on respondent No. 4 for his conduct, to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Barnala.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, quashed the letter issued by respondent No. 4 to the SSP, and directed the private respondents to seek redress through civil court or arbitration if they had any grievances. The court also advised the Punjab Excise and Taxation Department to seek legal opinions before involving third parties in similar matters.

← Previous Next →