9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (1) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant in all the appeals and of Mr. Habibullah Basha for Mr. K.A. Jabbar, Advocate for the Respondent in each of the Appeals, the Court made the following Order :- (The Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble the Officiating Chief Justice) These Writ appeals arise out of the judgment of learned Brother Kader, J. rendered in W.P. Nos. 2012 to 2016 of 1988. All of them came to be dealt with by a common judgment dated 21st September, 1988. The facts do not admit much of controversy. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 2012 to 2016 of 1988 the respondents herein are partners of the first Sujatha Jewellers No. 105-A South Avani Moola Street Madurai. They filed individual writ petitions for mandamus directing the Additional Collector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise, Madurai, for renewal of their licence. The Collector curiously enough issued a show cause notice to M/s. Sujatha Jewellers on 31-5-1987. Unfortunately the licence holders did not take up objection at the initial stage itself that they were not concerned with a show cause notice issued to Sujatha Jewellers. They raised various other defence, more perhaps with an anxiety to defend their case. Whatever it may be, their defence was overruled and the impugned order dated 16-10-1987 was passed refusing renewal. This was on the ground that there were certain contraventions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Against this order of rejection, an appeal was filed to the Collector of Central Excise. However, as a parallel proceedings W.P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te General prefaces his argument saying that in so far as the Managing Partner of the firm Kathiresan Pillai had chosen to file a reply to the show cause notice in a detailed fashion, it cannot be contended that against there must be individual notices. Therefore, one cannot disregardful of the fact, pressthat line of argument into service and take advantage of the situation or drive a hard bargain. This exactly what the petitioners/respondents want to do in these cases. 5. In opposing this, Mr. Habibullah Basha, learned Counsel for the respondents would urge that the categoric finding of the learned Judge is that under the Act and the Rules made thereunder, a firm could be a licensee. Where therfore a licence came to be issued in the nam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect to the other three partners. They were to carry on business at No. 105A, South Avani Moola Street, Madurai as seen from the Schedule. Then again, for the subsequent year licence was issued under Licence No. 17/77 on 18-5-1982 in the name of four individuals. That was renewed on 22-10-1984 for the years 1983 to 1985 and for the years 1986 to 1988 a sum of Rs. 25/- has been paid towards renewal fee along with application dated 18-11-1985. In the application dated 18-11-1985 under Column 7 it is stated thus :- "7. Name and addresses of partners and others having financial interest in the business 1. M. Kathiresan Pillai 2. K. Savithiri 3. M.S. Kumaragurubaran 4. K. Shanmugavelayutham ...Partners. Here again, the applicants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will quote the relevant passage from 'Law of Partnership in India' by S.D. Singh and J.P. Gupta (2nd Edition). "The Indian Partnership Act goes further than the English Partnership Act, 1890 in recognising that a firm may possess a personality distinct from the persons constituting it and is thus more in accordance with the Law of Scotland than with that of England. But the fact, that a firm possesses a distinct personality does not involve that the personality continues unchanged so long as business of firm continues. The Indian Act like the English Act avoids making a firm a corporate body enjoying the right or perpetual succession. It may be noted that a firm is not a juristic person but is only compendious expression of the names of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d dismiss these writ appeals. Accordingly they are dismissed with costs. Counsel fee - Rs. 1000/- one set. 7. Now that we have dismissed the writ appeals, the question arises as to what is to be done till the application for renewal is considered and orders passed. The learned Advocate General represents to us that at the shortest possible time the application for renewal will be disposed of on merits after issue of show cause notice afresh. However, Mr. Habibulla Basha would say that the respondents must be enabled to run their business. We find from the records that the business had actually been stopped by the respondents on 28-2-1988. Though an interim direction was obtained pending the writ petitions before the learned single Judge, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
