UNIVERSAL AUTOMOBILE AND ANCILLARY LTD Vs. COLLR OF C EX AND CUS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the stay petitions filed by the applicants were taken up for hearing on 21-9-1989, a question arose as to whether Shri S.K. Lakhani should file a separate appeal as regards the penalty imposed on him in his capacity as a partner in M/s. Universal Automobile & Ancillary Ind. This issue is now followed up by the separate Misc. application, the hearing of which is listed today.

(2.) Shri Bharucha, the learned advocate on behalf of the applicants contended that Shri Lakhani is imposed with a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs, as a partner of M/s. Universal Automobile Ancillary Ind. The firm has also been imposed with a separate penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs. Shri S.K. Lakhani is also a proprietor of M/s. Premier Electronics, on whom a separate penalty has been imposed. Shri Bharucha stated that a separate appeal has been filed by M/s. Premier Electronics, the proprietory concern of Shri S.K. Lakhani. The issue is only with regard to the joint appeal filed by M/s. Universal Automobile & Ancillary Ind. being a partnership firm having Shri S.K. Lakhani as one of the partners. His contention is that the cause of action is the same and the penalties have been imposed for the same cause of action under a single order and not under a multiple order. He also took us through the relevant provisions of the Partnership Act, viz. Secs. 4,18, 25 & 26 to point out that the liability of each of the partner is individual and serveral. As per the definition contained in Section 4, partnership is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. As per Section 18 of the said Act, partner is the agent of the firm for the purposes of the business of the firm. As per Section 25, every partner is liable jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done, while he is a partner. As per Section 26, ibid, where, by the wrongful act or omission of a partner acting in the ordinary course of the business of a firm, or with the authority of his partners, loss or injury is caused to any third party, or any penalty is incurred, the firm is liable therefore, to the same extent as the partner. He also cited Section 47 of the Partnership Act, to contend that the liability continues even after the dissolution of the Partnership firm.

(3.) HEARD Shri Mondal. He contended that the joint appeal, if permitted, should be verified by a partner apart from Shri S.K. Lakhani, on whom penalty has been imposed. Shri Bharucha pointed out that this has been complied with.