ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER OSD TELECOM DISTRICT LABBIPET VIJAYAWADA Vs. MAHALAKSHMI LEGAL AND TAX CONSULTANCY SERVICES VIJAYAWADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant case is one in which we find that hitherto acknowledged the rule of piercing the veil generally in the field of public law, is applicable to the case of the writ petitioner - respondent, who has claimed to have a telephone installed in a premises by the appellant herein in the name of a firm and another in the name of his wife in the same premises, defaulted to the extent of about rupees eight lakhs in payment of the tariff for the latter telephone and has objected to the appellant invoking Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules on the ground that the telephone which stands in the name of the firm belongs to a person different from the telephone which stood in the name of his wife and in which the default amounted to about rupees eight lakhs Legal character acquired by a firm to sue and being sued in its name is nothing but a compendious name given to the represaitation of all the partners and the law. how, in such a situation, a partnership should be viewed, is no longer in doubt in the sense that a firm is represented by a partner who is authorised to act on its behalf and he represents not himself alone but all the members of the firm. The writ petitioner - respondent firm represented by its consultant is none other than Mr. M. V.K. Murthy and one Kesavarajula Han Prasad, who has since been retired and replaced by the son of Mr. M.V.K. Murthy and Mrs. M. Mahalakshnu. The firm, however, originally applied for a telephone connection but the name of the applicant in the application No.TA - 21494 is shown as M.l'.K. Murthy. Managing Partner. M/s. Mahalakshnu Legal and Tax Consultancy Services, as filed on 27-1-1986. It is not in dispute the telephone bearing No.64877. later re-numbered as 474877, was allotted and installed against the said application in the premises in the occupation of Mr. M.l'.K. Murthy and Mrs. Maha lakshmi and their son, who has been later shown to be a partner besides Mr. M.V.K. Murthy. Another application for a telephone connection was filed on 1 -3-1990 in the name of Mrs. M. Mahalakhsnu and a telephone was allotted later some time in the year 1994 and installed in the same premises wherein telephone bearing No.64877, re-numbered as 474877. existed Telephone bearing No.479093 in the name of Mrs. Mahalakshmi, however was used frequently and alleged to have fallen in huge arrears of over rupees eight lakhs. The appellant disconnected telephone bearing No.479093 for the arrears and invoked Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules to diconnect telephone bearing No.474877 as well. A petition in the name of M/s Mahalakshmi Legal and Tax Consultancy Services, represented by its consultant Mr. B. Satyanarayana is filed is this Court Learned single Judge has held however, that Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules does not empower to disconnect the telephone of one person for the default of another person regardless of relation of the said two persons and on the facts as above, found that telephone bearing No.474877 is in the name of a firm, which is a separate legal entity, and has no relation with Mrs. Mahalakshmi who is not a partner of the firm.

(2.) A partnership firm or any other association of individuals which is a company, are legal entities in dieir own rights, provided they satisfy the required conditions for the said purpose, but they do not move unless such individuals who constitute the association i.e.. the firm or the company, move. It is well settled that inert organs of a Corporation, which is nothing but an association of individuals, pulsate with the heart and soul of those who are managers and operate with the mind of the managers. A partnership, it is well settled is a compendious name of the individuals who act for each other and who are accountable to each other as well as for the activities of the firm.

(3.) The applicant in the instant case, of the first telephone which was installed in the premises, we have already noticed is Mr. M. V.K. Murthy himself in the capacity of Managing Partner of M/s Mahalakshnu Legal and Tax Consultancy Services, the applicant for the second telephone is Mrs Mahalakshnu. his wife. She (Mahalakshmi) is not shown to be a partner of the firm - M/s Mahalakshnu Legal and Tax Consultancy Services, her son, however, is named as a partner of the firm If the smoke screen of the existence of the firm M/s. Mahalakshnu Legal and Tax Consultancy Services, is removed one can see clearly the presence of Mr. M. V.K. Murthy as the applicant for a telephone connection and the telephone is handled by him as it is installed in the premises in his occupation, The other telephone in the same premises is installed in the name of his wife, Mahalakshmi. What has been hitherto used by people, who constituted private limited companies and created subsidiaries to such companies even as public limited companies to avoid taxes and the courts noticed how, by creating two separate legal entities, certain persons were evading taxes and extended for such purposes the rule of piercing the veil and seeing the real person behind the companies and corporations, we have found to our dismay, has been used by a person, who, we are informed, is an advocate by profession and is running a legal and tax consultancy firm for the purposes of getting more than one telephone connection and using, in the event of default, the so called legal character of the firm to avoid disconnection by invoking Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules. We do not, however, propose to take any serious view of such a conduct of Mr. M. V.K. Murthy except to record that when cloak is removed the real relationship of the owner of the first telephone connection (Mr M.V.K.Murthy) and the owner of the second telephone connection (Mrs. Mahalakshmi) is revealed and they are none else man the husband and wife. We are satisfied in the instant case that Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules is attracted and the appellant have committed no error in invoking the same.