# Israr Ahmad v. Tehsildar Sadar, Muzaffarnagar and others - **Citation:** (2002) 2 ILRA 399 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2002-03-15 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. (Trade Tax) Writ Petition No. 10613 of 2002 - **Bench:** S.K. Sen, C.J. S.R. Alam - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/israr-ahmad-v-tehsildar-sadar-muzaffarnagar-and-others-39893 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Act 1932 Section 25- Liability of a partner-after the dissolution of firm- the individual property of the partner- can held liable to the extent of his share. Held- Para 4 and 5 Therefore, the liability of a retiring partner of the firm continues for the period during which he was partner of the firm and the debts and assets of the individual partner can be made liable and the creditor can proceed for recovery of the amount from the partner to the extent of his share. In the instant case, admittedly, the writ petitioner was partner of the firm when the said debt or liability was incurred and therefore, even if subsequently, he retired from the firm, he is liable for the debt of the firm incurred before his retirement. ## Text 2 All] Israr Ahmad Vs. Tehsildar Sadar, Muzaffarnagar and others 399 of law, is to protect law and not to abduct it. So if by misusing their 'Wardi' they depredate the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, they should be dealt with in heavy hand otherwise, it would encourage others to disobey the law. They are instances where innocent persons having suffered at the hands of the police ransacked the police station, assaulted the police personnel in order to take revenge of their illegal acts. Therefore, if the abuse of power by the police is not checked and long arm of law fails to apprehend them and their belief is reinforced that no harm can be caused to them by any authority, the people will loose faith in prevailing law as well as the law enforcing machinery. 14. In the case on hand, as discussed earlier, it was the police personnel present at the relevant time in the police station mercilessly tortured and eliminated the deceased while he was in lock-up. For deprivation of life of the deceased at the hands of the police, State is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners on the principle that the state is responsible for the tortuous acts of its employees. Instead of asking the petitioners to enforce their rights through ordinary process of the court, this Court has ample power under Article 226 of the Constitution to award them compensation for death of the deceased in police lock-up. 15. Now the question arises as to the quantum of compensation which would be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Human life is precious. Loss sustained by the blind father, old mother and the wife, the petitioners herein, cannot be compensated. The parents, as their old age, lost their young and able bodied son who was maintaining them from his day's income as a labourer. The widow, petitioner No.3 at young age lost her husband. Can any amount of compensation that we may determine, fill up the loss sustained by them or give them solace? Our answer to this is emphatic 'No'. 16. So taking an overall view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the State- respondent No. 1 to pay a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rs.1,50,000/- to petitioners No. 1 and 2 and Rs.1,00,000/- to petitioner No.3) within one month hence. The aforesaid amount may be recovered by the State from the concerned police officers responsible for the death of the deceased in the police lock-up. 17. We are, however, not inclined to issue any direction to initiate any enquiry by any sitting or retired District Judge since a case of murder has been registered and investigation taken up by the CBCID. 18. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.03.2002 BEFORE THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J. THE HON'BLE S.R. ALAM, J. Civil Misc. (Trade Tax) Writ Petition No. 10613 of 2002 Israr Ahmad ...Petitioner Versus Tehsildar Sadar, Muzaffarnagar and others ...Respondents INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002 400 Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Rajiv Gupta Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.P. Kesarwani S.C. Partnership Act 1932 Section 25- Liability of a partner-after the dissolution of firm- the individual property of the partner- can held liable to the extent of his share. Held- Para 4 and 5 Therefore, the liability of a retiring partner of the firm continues for the period during which he was partner of the firm and the debts and assets of the individual partner can be made liable and the creditor can proceed for recovery of the amount from the partner to the extent of his share. In the instant case, admittedly, the writ petitioner was partner of the firm when the said debt or liability was incurred and therefore, even if subsequently, he retired from the firm, he is liable for the debt of the firm incurred before his retirement. (Delivered by Hon'ble S.K. Sen, C.J.) 1. Heard Sri Rajiv Gupta learned counsel for writ petitioner and Sri S.P. Kesarwani learned Standing Counsel for State Respondents no. 1 to 3. 2. In this writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: "(i) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned recovery citation dated 4.8.2000 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) issued by respondent no. 1 and also the impugned orders dated 17.08.2000 (Annexure-9) and 17.4.2001 (Annexure11) passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to recover any amount and not to harass, the petitioner in any manner whatsoever in pursuance of impugned recovery citation issued by respondent No. 1 and impugned orders passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. (iii) To issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the application of petitioner under Section 8 BB of Act (Annexure-8) afresh, after quashing the impugned orders taking into the fact that the application of reconstitution filed on 5.5.1992 (annexure-4 to writ petition) is also time barred and is yet to be disposed of. (iv) To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. (v) To award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner." 3. The contention of the writ petitioner is that he was partner only for four months in the year 1992. Thereafter he retired from partnership and the firm was dissolved and a new firm was constituted and notice under Section 8BB was given to appropriate authority which was rejected on 17.8.2000. The contention of Mr. Gupta learned counsel for writ petitioner is that there was no scope for rejection of the application under Section 8 BB since there is no provision for the same in the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The said rejection order was passed in the year 1993 and no step was taken by the petitioner against the said rejection order. That apart, we are of the view that the scope of Section 8-BB is very limited. Section 8-BB is set out below: 2 All] Israr Ahmad Vs. Tehsildar Sadar, Muzaffarnagar and others 401 "8-BB Information to be furnished regarding change of business: If any dealer to whom the provisions of section 8-A or section 8-B apply: (a) transfers his business or any part thereof by sale, lease, leave, licence, hire or in any other manner whatsoever, or otherwise disposes of his business or any part thereof, or (b) acquires any business, whether by purchase or otherwise; or (c) effects or comes to know of any other change in the ownership of constitution of his business; or (d) discontinues his business or changes his place of business or warehouse or opens a new place of business or warehouse; or (e) changes the name, style or nature of his business or effects any change in the class or description of goods in which he carries on his business as specified in his certificate of registration; or (f) enters into partnership or other association in regard to his business, or (g) starts a new business or joins another business either singly or jointly with other persons, (h) in the case of a company incorporated under a statute effects any change in the constitution of Board of Directors, (i) effects any change in the particulars furnished in application for the grant of any certificate under section 4-A, or section 4-B or section 8-A or section 8B, he shall within thirty days of the occurring of any of the events aforesaid, inform the assessing authority in the form and manner as may be prescribed." 4. It appears that under the circumstances mentioned in the aforesaid section the notice is required to be given to the Revenue authorities intimating the dissolution and reconstitution of the firm or any change made in the business or place. That does not take away the liability of the partner of the firm for the debts or liability of the firm incurred when the said person was partner of the firm. In this connection relevant provision of Section 25 of the Partnership Act 1932, may also be considered, which runs as follows: "25. Liability of a partner for acts of the firm- 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." The provisions contained under Section 25 of the Partnership Act 1932, does not contemplate such stand that even if debt or liability is incurred during the period the person was partner, his liability shall cease for that period if the dissolution of the firm takes place but the person under Rules remains partner of the firm and is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all the acts of the firm done while he is a partner. It is well settled that a partner who retires from the firm does not thereby cease to be liable for debt and obligations of the firm incurred before his retirement. Even after dissolution of the partnership the rights and obligations of the partner continues notwithstanding dissolution. However a retiring partner may be discharged from any existing liability by an agreement to that effect between himself and the members of the firm as newly constituted, but it does not affect the rights of the creditors. Therefore, the liability of a retiring partner of the firm continues for the period during which he INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002 402 was partner of the firm and the debts and assets of the individual partner can be made liable and creditor can proceed for recovery of the amount from the partner to the extent of his share. 5. In the instant case, admittedly, the writ petitioner was partner of the firm when the said debt or liability was incurred and therefore, even if subsequently, he retired from the firm, he is liable for the debt of the firm incurred before his retirement. We do not find any merit in the writ petition and the writ petition stands dismissed. The application for interim relief also stands rejected. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.03.2002 BEFORE THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J. THE HON'BLE R.K. AGARWAL, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. (Tax) 411 of 2002 M/s Das's Friends Builders Private Limited ...Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-I (2), Agra ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Sah O.P. Agarwal Sri Rohit Agarwal Counsel for the Respondent: Sri A.N. Mahajan S.C. Section 148-149 of Income Tax Act- reasons are to be recorded before issuing any notice- the reapons recorded in this case are relevant for forming a reasonable belief that the income has escaped assessment to tax. (Held- para 3) We have perused the reasons recorded by the Assessing Authority for initiating the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act and are of the view that the reasons recorded are relevant for forming a reasonable belief that the income has escaped assessment to tax. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition fails and is accordingly stands dismissed and the application for interim relief is also rejected. (Delivered by Hon'ble S.K. Sen, C.J.) 1. Heard Shri A.N. Agarwal learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.N. Mahajan learned additional Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is incumbent upon the Revenue to record reasons before issuing any notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We find in this case that before issuing the notice on 12.5.2000, adequate reasons have been recorded which have also been given to the petitioner vide letter dated 26.2.2002 after the petitioner had filed the return. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Authority for initiating the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act are reproduced below: "For the detailed reasoning given in the assessing order U/s 143(3) dated 20.3.2000 for A.Y. 1997-98, the total unexplained investment in the Friends Apartment was determined at Rs.2,86,77,365/- relating to F.Y. 1994-95 to 1998-99 (A.Y. 1995-96 to 1999-2000).