D.m.
Srinivas (click to continue)
The plaintiff was the owner of certain properties that were located in the urban area. The assessee has let out the premises owned by him to the aforesaid partnership farm in which he was also a partner. The plaintiff claimed exemption from levy. Also, claimed for payment of additional wealth tax under the wealth tax provisions for his business purpose. The application made in the wealth tax officer was decided against the assessee thus a separate appeal was made before the Appellate Assistance Commissioner who allowed assess’s appeals. "The dispute in these appeals is about the levy of additional wealth tax. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, relying on the decision of the Income‐tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of N. Soorian Pillai, reported in (1983) 4 ITD 385, held that the premises of the assessee should, be treated as business premises and, hence, additional wealth tax was not leviable.?
The court decided that the expression of partnership defined by the Partnership Act be said that the business carried on by the firm is a business carried on by all the partners of the firm. Profits of the firm are profits earned by all the partners in carrying on the business. In view of this settled legal position, the business carried on by the firm in the premises owned by the assessee in an urban area, in which he is a partner is the business of the assessee. The business premises owned by him, situate in am urban area from the purview of computing the net wealth of the assessee for the purpose of levy of additional
P
l d 1990 lahore 229
Sh.
Muhammad sharif uppal‐‐appellant
Versus
Sh.
Akbar hussain and others‐respondents
Respondents have filed
a suit against the present appellant for administration, partition and
rendition of accounts etc. of the properties left by their father Haji Muhammad
Hussain deceased. The appellant has taken a number of preliminary objections regarding
the properties of Haji Muhammad claimed to be inherited by his legal heirs. The
present appeal has been filed by the defendant/appellant against the judgment
of lower court and decree of the learned lower appellate Court whereas the
plaintiffs along with Mst. Balquis Sultana, daughter of Haji Muhammad have also
riled connected. M/s.
Sharif Sons and property may be reversed and the appellant/plaintiff be also
granted relief of rendition of accounts as such the preliminary decree.
Among the many other
claims the appellant also contested for the plot measuring 2 kanals 19 marlas situated
at Begum Kot Lahore. The case of the appellant was that this plot was invested
by Haji Muhammad Hussain deceased, as his share of investment in the firm style
of Sharif Sons, as such, the same became partnership property. .
His case was that subsequently the third partner namely Mahmood Hussain one of
the plaintiffs also withdrew from the partnership and the business became the sole
proprietorship of the appellant as Mahmood Hussain also transferred his share
in the plot as partnership property to the appellant as such he became its full
owner. Haji
Muhammad Hussain nor Mahmood Hussain one of the plaintiffs and the present
appellant were partners in that firm and the documents produced to establish
the creation of the said firm were held to be fabricated. As a consequence of this
finding it was held that land measuring 2 kanals 19 marlas situated in village Begum
Kot, Lahore was owned by Haji Muhammad Hussain. However, the learned trial Court
passed preliminary decree through judgment respect of the said properties in
favour of the plaintiffs, and Mst. Bilquis Sultana daughter of Mst. Regarding property measuring 2 kanals 19 marlas which was found to
have been invested by Haji Muhammad Hussain in the firm it was further held
that the same is still owned by the firm and could not be subject matter of the
present suit as such could be dealt with separately as partnership property. Yet,
the present court held that the partnership deed is not satisfied to be valid
because it was not proof.
P
L D 2019 Lahore 395
Messrs
EASTERN MEDICAL TECHNOLOGYSERVICES---Petitioner
Versus
PROVINCE
OF PUNJAB and others---Respondents
The petitioner Eastern
medical Technology service was registered under the partnership Act. The
original founders of the petitioner firm were Mr. Abid Hussain Abid son of
Muhammad Nazir Ahmad and Mr.Ghulam Shakir son of Feroz Din.After demise of Mr. Abid Hussain Abid his widow, Khalida
Parveen stepped into his shoes as a partner in terms of the agreement with the
surviving partner Mr. Shakir and business of the firm continued. However,
agreement between Mr. Shakir and Mrs.Khalida Parveen for change in Partnership
was reduced into writing and duly endorsed by legal heirs of the deceased Abid
Hussain Abid in the form of affidavits executed in favour of their mother, the
new partner. The change in Constitution of the partnership was communicated to
the Registrar of firms Lahore through Form-B. Respondent Messrs Vertex Medical
filed a suit that the petitioners were not qualified to contest for the bid
which they have won and it stood dissolved on the demise of one of its founding
partner In support of his contention respondent
No.4 brought on record the legal opinion obtained from Cornelius Lane and Mufti
who opined that in a two member partnership firm, the death of one partner
dissolves that firm by operation of law notwithstanding any contrary provision
in their partnership contract. The application was made to the Grievance
Committee which gave the decision against the petitioner. The petitioner
challenged this decision in the present court on ground of page-2 of the
partnership deed (Annexure A/4) was specifically stated "That death of a
partner shall not dissolve the firm. The surviving partner shall continue the
business of the firm".
The court figured that
from contents of the reproduced partnership deed it emerges out that the
founder partners expressly declared their intention that after death of any one
of them the business of the firm will be continued by the surviving partner and
the partnership shall not be dissolved. The Court held that the reproduced
documents and narration of transactions are evidence of the fact that after
death of the deceased partner Abid Hussain the partnership is continuing by his
widow and the surviving partner. The court held that the impugned decision of
the Grievance Committee is based on a wrong notion that EMTS was no more a
legal partnership
0 Comments