VIJAY BHUPAL DESAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE made to the constitutional validity of Rule 50 of Order 21 of the CPC is ill founded. Mere statement that Article 14 is violated does not amount to pointing out the unequal protection given to equally situated persons. Certain type of protection is available to companies which is not avliable to the partnership firm really has no meaning. The company is a juristic person governed by the provisions of the Companies Act and its incorporation and winding up are controlled by the provisions contained in that Act. A partnership firm is not a uristic person. Aregistered firm is no more than a compendius name acquired for limited purpose of being sued or to sue in the name of the firm and is not an association of persons who may be termed a juristic person as in the case of a firm containing more than 7 persons and being sought to be wound up as a unregistered company uncer the Companies Act. When that is not the case, the provisions made in Rule 50 which provides for attachment of properties belonging to partners, in the circumstances stated therein, cannot be said to be opposed to Article 14. Petition is misconceived. Therefore, it is rejected. Writ Petition is rejected.