1998 (2) TMI 12

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ctice. The suit is for declaration that Sujir Ganesh Naik and Company, a partnership firm of which the plaintiff and defendant were partners stood dissolved or is deemed to have been dissolved with effect from December 31, 1982, or March 14, 1981, settlement of accounts and other reliefs. The defendant contended, inter alia, that plaint A schedule items, 1, 6 to 14 and 16 to 19 are not properties of the firm as alleged by the plaintiff and that they belong to the defendant as full owner. In other words, the contention is that some of the properties mentioned in the plaint are acquired by using the defendant's own funds and those properties are not the assets of the firm. According to the plaintiff, all the properties scheduled to the plaint .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er for the period subsequent to April 1, 1964 and up to 1968-69. The revision is directed against the aforesaid order of the trial court. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, I am satisfied that the order under challenge does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this court in exercise of the revisional power under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. It has been contended by the defendant that the income-tax returns for the period up to April 1, 1964, cannot be directed to be produced for the reason that section 137 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was deleted only with effect from April 1, 1964. That contention was rightly upheld by the trial court in view of the deletion of section 137 of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... accordingly directed the income-tax and wealth-tax authorities for the production of the income-tax and wealth-tax returns for the period subsequent to April 1, 1964 up to 1968-69 and allowed the I. A. to that extent. The apex court while considering a similar situation has upheld the power of the civil court to summon the documents from the income-tax authorities, holding that the privilege cannot be claimed when the court has summoned their production. In the decision reported in Dagi Ram Pindi Lall v. Trilok Chand Jain, AIR 1992 SC 990, the court held as follows: "After the repeal of section 137 of the Act by Finance Act 5 of 1964, there is no longer any impediment left in the way of a court to summon the production of documents file .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X