BHAGWAN DASS Vs. APPELLATE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts in this writ petition are numerous but having regard to the limited question raised at the bar, it would be necessary only to state a few of them. The petitioner, along with his brother. Panna Lal, the father of respondent Banwari Lal (respondent No. 4), was carrying on business in partnership under the name of bijjamal Melaram. On 2nd January, 1949, the said two brothers entered into a partnership with one Abdul Rehman Haji Ghani carrying on business as Mosa Umar and Company in Bombay and the new firm was named as Bijjamal Mosa Umar. The petitioner and Panna Lal had one-fourth share each in the partnership, while abdul Rehman Haji Ghani had one-half. On 16th May, 1949, there were certain variations made in the terms of partnership, the duration whereof was fixed at five years. It was agreed that the tenancy rights in the business premises, the good will and telephone shall, on dissolution, belong exclusively to Abdul Rehman Haji ghani. Abdul Rehman Haji Ghani died on 14th December, 1949, and since his heirs were all evacuees, the business including the stock-in-trade and tenancy rights of the firm Bijjamal Moosa Umar, being carried on at two different places in bombay, was declared evacuee property. It is claimed by the petitioner that the business was still continued and carried on by Panna Lal, the father of respondent no. 4. Differences arose between the petitioner and Panna Lal and the dispute was referred to arbitration. The firm Bijjamal Melaram was dissolved. The arbitrator is alleged to have issued some interim directions, under which the control and business of the firm Bijjamal Moosa Umar in Bombay was taken over by Panna Lal to the exclusion of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, a complete inventory of the stocks lying in the Bombay shops was prepared and possession taken by panna Lal to the exclusion of the petitioner. The arbitration to Dr. Gopi Chand bhargava was, however, revoked and it appears that some new arbitrator was appointed. A notice under Section 6 of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951,was issued to the petitioner and Panna Lal on 7th November, 1952, and in response thereto the petitioner claimed one-fourth share in the firm Bijjamal moosa Umar. Panna Lal also filed a claim alleging that he was sole owner of the composite property, the suggestion being that the deceased's interest had been sold to him. The Deputy Custodian of Evacuee property disputed Panna Lal's claim as to the sole ownership and asked for accounts from Panna Lal. The competent officer issued interim directions to Panna Lal to furnish security for Rs. 45. 000/-, failing which the possession of the assets of the business etc. shall be taken from him. Panna Lal complied with that order and also undertook to maintain stocks in the shop of the value of not less than Rs. 60,000/-, which undertaking had also been called for from Panna Lal by the competent officer. On 27th September, 1954, certain compromise terms were recorded to which the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property, Bombay, the petitioner and Panna Lal were parties. It was, by the said terms, agreed that the accounts of the firm Bijjamal Moosa Umar be taken till 31st December, 1953, and threafter the business will be run by Panna lal on his own account and the other partners will not be liable for profits or losses. It was further agreed that Panna Lal will be liable to make good the value of the assets of the firm as on 1st December, 1958. The competent officer passed an order on 5th November, 1954, declaring that -- (1) the petitioner and Panna Lal had one- fourth share each in the firm bijjamal Moosa Umar, while the interest of Abdul Rehman Haft Ghani was one-half;

(2.) THE interest of late Abdul Rehman Haji Ghani had passed to the evacuees;

(3.) THE goodwill, tenancy rights, fittings and furniture, and telephone exclusively belonged to the evacuees and the value of the said assets was fixed at Rs. 50,000/-; and