1965 (1) TMI 65

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shah, one of the partners of this Madras firm, along with another partner from Nagpur had established earlier a partnership firm in Nagpur for manufacturing glass. That firm also was known as "Central Glass Works". Thus, D.V. Shah along with another partner constituted the Nagpur firm, and D.V. Shah and two others unconnected with the Nagpur firm, constituted the Madras firm. D.V. Shah remained the common factor in these two firms. On account of certain inter-State sales, the Sales Tax Authorities of Andhra Pradesh assessed the Nagpur firm to a sales tax of Rs. 1,171.87 nP. in respect of transactions which took place during the period Ist April, 1954 to 6th September, 1955. The Madras firm (petitioner herein) came into being only after ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ommon legal liability so as to enable the respondents to realise from the Madras firm the tax due from the Nagpur firm. The attempted justification of the impugned action of the respondents on the ground of the alleged common identity of the two firms has therefore to be rejected. It is then urged that the partners of the Nagpur firm including D.V. Shah are jointly and severally liable for the tax amount. It is claimed on this basis that the share of D.V. Shah in the petitionerfirm can be attached and sold to realise the tax payable by the Nagpur firm of which he is admittedly a partner. This argument seems to proceed on an erroneous conception of the nature of the interest of an individual partner in the property of an existing partners....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....judhia Pershad Ram Pershad v. Sham SunderA.I.R. 1947 Lah. 13. This principle has also formed the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in A. Narayanappa v. B. KrishnappaA.I.R. 1959 A.P. 380. which arose under the Registration Act. The same principle governs a judgment-creditor who in execution of his decree against an individual partner seeks to take a specific item of partnership property as belonging to his judgment debtor. Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Edn., Vol. 28, page 544, para. 1055) states the proposition thus: "As a writ of execution cannot issue against any partnership property except in a judgment against the firm, partnership property cannot be taken in execution for a separate judgment against one partner." This legal....