9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (10) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts. 2.. The first defendant was the main contesting defendant. He denied the existence of a partnership. He averred that the plaintiff and the second defendant gave a loan of Rs. 5,000 each. The business belongs to him exclusively. He was an employee in the shop of the plaintiff's husband (P.W.1), that the amounts payable to him accumulated and were utilised for this business. P.W. 1, the husband of the plaintiff, is his elder brother. When he knew about the sale of the shop, he approached his elder brother and the purchase was made through him. An amount of Rs. 10,000 was paid to the landlord. The first defendant requested his brother to pay the amount to the landlord. The possessory mortgage was executed, in such circumstances, in the name of the plaintiff. He is not on good terms with his brother. The suit was filed in the above circumstances. The second defendant filed a separate written statement stating that she had advanced a loan of Rs. 5,000 to the first defendant and the said amount was returned in 1973. She has no knowledge about the partnership arrangement. 3.. The learned Subordinate judge by his judgment, dated 31st March, 1980 held that the business by name "PLA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cherry and they may be marked as exhibits C-1 and C-2. The said documents were marked as exhibits C-1 and C-2. 5.. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the business run in the name of "PLASTO" in Tellicherry Town belongs to a partnership consisting of the plaintiff and defendants or the first defendant exclusively? The learned Subordinate judge referred to the documents obtained from the Sales Tax Department, namely, the application for registration of the firm, the recommendation made for the issue of the registration certificate and other connected matters. He held that the said documents are privileged ones but the court is entitled to look into the same. Reference was also made to exhibits B-8, B-9, B-21 and B-22, exhibits A-5, A-6, A-10, A-11, A-14 to A-17 and the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3, to hold that the business by name "PLASTO" was started as a partnership concern with the plaintiff and defendants are partners of that business. The learned Subordinate Judge referred to exhibits B-1 to B-7, relied on by the first defendant and held that those receipts will not show that the business belongs to the first defendant exclusively. 6.. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence given or affidavit or deposition made in the course of any proceeding under this Act or in any record of any proceeding relating to the recovery of a demand, prepared for the purposes of this Act, shall be treated as confidential and shall not be disclosed." Counsel placed reliance on the decisions reported in State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh AIR 1961 SC 493, Charu Chandra Kundu v. Gurupada Ghosh AIR 1962 SC 1119, Sankaranarayana Bhatta v. Ganapathi Bhatta 1977 KLT 583 and Ibrahim v. Agricultural Income-tax Officer 1984 KLT 725. In the above cases, similar provisions of the Income-tax Act and Agricultural Income-tax Act were construed. A reference to the said decisions will show that the prohibition is only against the disclosure to a stranger to the proceedings. We do not understand the said decisions to lay down that if the parties to the sales tax proceedings themselves apply for or desire or make request for the supply of information or documents, it can be contended that the disclosure is either prohibited or that the particulars in the relevant documents should be treated as confidential and shall not be disclosed. Section 54 of the Sales Tax Act is only intended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rala General Sales Tax Act has no application in this case. The argument to the contrary by the appellant's counsel is repelled. 8.. It is common ground that the plaintiff was not examined in this case. Her husband was examined as P.W.1. The appellant's counsel contended that the finding of the court below that there is a firm wherein the plaintiff and defendants are partners and the capital might have been obtained by P.W. 1 and the plaintiff, is against the plea set up in the plaint. We are unable to agree. The substantial plea set up in the plaint was that the plaintiff and the defendants are partners in the firm. It was also stated that the first defendant should get 15 per cent of the profits and the second defendant should get 10 per cent. Since there was no evidence to prove that the plaintiff invested the entire Rs. 15,000, but on the other hand, the sales tax files disclosed that the contribution of the capital by all the three partners was at Rs. 5,000 each, the court below held that each one of them is entitled to 1/3 share in the capital as well as in the profits of the business. We are unable to accept the argument of the appellant's counsel that the plea found is to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stration was granted to the firm. Exhibits C-1 and C-2 taken along with exhibits B-8, B-9, B-21 and B-22, A-1, A-2, A-5, A-6, A-10, A-11 and A-14 to A-17 and the evidence of P.W. 1 unmistakably lead to the conclusion that the plaintiff and defendants are partners of the firm "PLASTO". We have absolutely no hesitation to affirm the finding of the court below in that regard. We do so. 9.. Appellant's counsel laid considerable stress on an entry in the ledger of 1972 to show that the plaintiff and the second defendant were paid Rs. 5,000 each. There is no receipt therefor from the plaintiff or the second defendant. The court below has adverted to this aspect in para 7 of the judgment and has held that it has been so made, so as to make it appear that the amounts originally shown in the accounts are in the nature of borrowals. It will also militate against the statement contained in exhibits C-1 and C-2. Stress was also laid on exhibits B-1 to B-7 receipts. They are rent receipts alleged to have been issued by the plaintiff to the first defendant in 1973. The genuineness of these receipts is seriously challenged by the plaintiff. The court below held that these receipts themselves wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
