Skip to content


S.M. Mohamed Ibrahim and Co. Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectExcise
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 6394/73
Judge
Reported in1977(1)ELT156(Mad)
AppellantS.M. Mohamed Ibrahim and Co.
RespondentSuperintendent of Central Excise and ors.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....were not complied with within fifteen days, action would be initiated to stop the transactions in the warehouse. it is under these circumstances the writ petition has been filed.3. mr. jummakhan, the learned counsel for the petitoner, contends that, so long as the property of the firm has been given as security, the departmental officers have no authority to call upon the partners to produce solvency certificates individually. i am unable to accept this contention. ex. b 4. bond admittedly executed by the petitioner states that all the partners undertake the liability jointly and severally. once the partners have undertaken the liability and severally it is certainly open to the department to call upon each one or the partners to produce a solvency certificate with reference to the.....
Judgment:

Ismail, J.

1. This petition coming on for orders as to admission on this day, upon persuing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. P.M. Jumma Khan, Advocate for the Petitioner the Court made the following order:-

2. The petitioner, which is a partnership firm, prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Superintendent of Central Excise, Pudukottai, to renew its licence for the warehouse for the year 1973. The petitioner applied for the renewal of the licence on 29.11.1972. The first Respondent sent a communication dated 20.03.1973 calling upon the petitioner to comply with certain requirements pointing out that certain properties given as security to the Department had been given as security to Canara Bank, Pudukottoi also, against the advance of any loan. The first Respondent wrote a subsequent letter date 3.4.1973 calling upon the partners to produce their solvency certificates in view of the fact that all the partners had jointly and severally hald themselves liable to pay the dues to the Department. The partners not having produced the solvency certificates the first Respondent sent the communication dated 29.11.1973 drawing the attention of the petitioner to his earlier communications dated 20.03.1973 and 03.04.1973 and stating that if those letters were not complied with within fifteen days, action would be initiated to stop the transactions in the warehouse. It is under these circumstances the writ petition has been filed.

3. Mr. Jummakhan, the learned counsel for the petitoner, contends that, so long as the property of the firm has been given as security, the Departmental officers have no authority to call upon the partners to produce solvency certificates individually. I am unable to accept this contention. Ex. B 4. bond admittedly executed by the petitioner states that all the partners undertake the liability jointly and severally. Once the partners have undertaken the liability and severally it is certainly open to the Department to call upon each one or the partners to produce a solvency certificate with reference to the obligation they had undertaken severally. Hence this writ petition is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //