TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (3) TMI 15
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....District judge, Jabalpur, the firm, on April 24, 1959, obtained a money decree against one Baijnath Choudha for more than one lakh of rupees. A settlement was arrived at between them and the decree was adjusted. Certain amount was deposited in court for payment to the decree-holder towards the full satisfaction of the decree. The applicant in this Civil Revision No. 1421/78, i.e., Dey's Medical Stores Private Ltd., who holds a money decree against the firm S. S. Dhanyakumar & Co. and its partners objected to that settlement. This objection was finally rejected by this court, vide order dated April 27, 1977, in Civil Revision No. 774 of 1975. Now a sum of Rs. 12,341 is lying in civil court deposit towards that decree obtained by S. S. Dhanya....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m when the assets of the firm were sold. Necessarily, therefore, the decree should also be included in the assets of the partnership which were sold and were purchased by the two partners, namely, Dhanyakumar and Abhaykumar. It has, therefore, been rightly held that it is Dhanyakumar and Abhaykumar who alone have share in the decretal amount. This question was not seriously disputed before me and I also hold that in this amount of Rs. 12,341, which has been realised towards the satisfaction of the decree of the firm against Shri Choudha, Dharamdas has no interest. As a necessary corrollary, it must follow that no dues against Dhanyakumar can be realised from this amount. The order of the attachment issued to the Additional District judge, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o urge that the assets of individual partners can be proceeded against for the recovery of dues against the firm. That, however, is not the case here. have earlier shown that the recovery is sought to be effected against the individuals, may be that some of them were the partners of the firm, M/s. Dhanyakumar Dharamdas and Company. The result would be that out of the amount of Rs. 12,341, the Department is entitled to get Rs. 6,170.50 (half share of Abhaykumar) and only Rs. 425 towards the dues against Dhanyakumar total Rs. 6,595.50. The lower court missed this aspect of the case, and, therefore, committed an error in allowing the Department to take away the entire amount. The lower court's order, therefore, needs modification to that exten....