Partnership

In order to apply the enabling provisions of the Partnership Act, 1932 in a suit for rendition of accounts, it was essential for plaintiff to prove that a partnership firm existed and such firm was engaged in any trade or business or had gained profit or incurred loss

Onus to prove such facts lay on the plaintiff in order to prove that the firm was practically performing business.

Predecessor-in-interest of parties were partners in business and plaintiffs claimed that after death of their father they had become partner in the business

Validity

Plaintiffs failed to bring on record income tax return filed by them showing business as partnership concern in which they were also taxpayers

Survey Form filed by plaintiffs reflected that it had same National Tax Number of the firm, as well as that of plaintiffs and defendants and the same was not conceivable

Survey Form ceased to have any evidentiary value being contradictory and ambiguous in nature

In a partnership business, the firm was required to file its own return, whereas partners to file their independent returns as well

Plaintiff failed to bring on record any material to show that business continued with defendants in the form of partnership including any details of Bank accounts, balance sheet, profit and loss account or even settlement of accounts prior to date from which they claimed their share of profit

Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

Predecessor-in-interest of parties were partners in business and plaintiffs claimed that after death of their father they had become partner in the business

Validity

Plaintiffs failed to bring on record income tax return filed by them showing business as partnership concern in which they were also taxpayers

Survey Form filed by plaintiffs reflected that it had same National Tax Number of the firm, as well as that of plaintiffs and defendants and the same was not conceivable

Survey Form ceased to have any evidentiary value being contradictory and ambiguous in nature

In a partnership business, the firm was required to file its own return, whereas partners to file their independent returns as well

Plaintiff failed to bring on record any material to show that business continued with defendants in the form of partnership including any details of Bank accounts, balance sheet, profit and loss account or even settlement of accounts prior to date from which they claimed their share of profit

Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of respondents was that applicants had ceased to be the partners of firm, that they had no locus standi to file the present application and application under S.12(2), C.P.C. could be filed only against the final judgment, decree or order and not against an order passed on an interlocutory application

Validity

One could seek his remedy under S. 12(2), C.P.C. by making an application to the court which had passed the final judgment, decree or order if the validity of the same was challenged by him on the plea of misrepresentation, fraud or want of jurisdiction

Word "validity" would relate to the legality, legitimacy and propriety of the judgment, decree or order challenged under S.12(2), C.P.C.

Judgment, decree or order challenged under S.12(2), C.P.C. was to be based on formal determination or adjudication in the proceedings in absence of which its "validity" could neither be challenged nor same could be decided

Judgment, decree or order which did not fall within such category could not be challenged under S.12(2), C.P.C.

Court was bound to determine the nature and effect of impugned judgment, decree or order while deciding an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. and then to see whether the requirements of said Section had been fulfilled by the applicant or not

No judgment or decree had been challenged in the present application and an order passed with regard to withdrawal of suit had been impugned

Element of conclusive determination of the rights of parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit was applicable to orders challenged under S.12(2), C.P.C.

No determination or adjudication had taken place nor any judgment, decree or order was passed in the suit on merits but suit was simply dismissed as not pressed without opposition of contesting defendants

Impugned orders which were passed without any conclusive determination or adjudication could not be challenged under S.12(2), C.P.C.

Applicants, in the present case, were not partners of the firm when impugned orders were passed

Applicants thus were not "aggrieved" by the impugned orders and they could not file the present application

Presumption would be that a party had admitted the contents of document (certificate issued by Registrar of Firms), in absence of any denial or dispute with regard to such contents of the document

Document had presumption of truth unless same was disproved by cogent and admissible evidence

Burden of proof that the entries in the record were wrong would be on the party who had alleged the same

Documentary evidence could be rebutted only by documents

Certificate issued by the Registrar of Firms with regard to retirement of applicants and induction of other partners was conclusive proof against them as same had not been suspended or cancelled

Statement, intimation or notice which had been entered in the register of firms would constitute conclusive proof against the person by or on whose behalf same was filed

Estoppel would apply against a person who had notified the Registrar of Firms that he/she had become a partner of the firm and he/she could not be permitted to resile from the same

Events of retirement of applicants and induction of other partners of firms took place prior to the passing of impugned orders

Such events were not done by the parties in connection with the proceedings before the court nor same were recorded by the court at the time of passing the impugned orders

Alleged fraud or misrepresentation, in circumstances, took place either outside the court or subsequent to the passing of impugned orders

Section 12(2), C.P.C. had limited scope and same could not be invoked on the plea of mala fide or abuse of process of the court

Fraud or misrepresentation should be specifically alleged with all relevant and material particulars in order to invoke the provisions of S. 12(2), C.P.C. and same should be in connection with the proceedings of the court and not prior to its initiation or after decision of the court

In the present case, no fraud was committed on the dates when impugned orders were passed, provisions of S.12(2), C.P.C., therefore, could not be invoked by the applicants

No allegation of fraud had been alleged against the contesting defendants of the suit

Limitation for filing an application under S.12(2), C.P.C. was three years and present application was time-barred

No application for condonation of delay had been filed to justify the delay of each and every day

Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of respondents was that applicants had ceased to be the partners of firm, that they had no locus standi to file the present application and application under S.12(2), C.P.C. could be filed only against the final judgment, decree or order and not against an order passed on an interlocutory application

Validity

One could seek his remedy under S. 12(2), C.P.C. by making an application to the court which had passed the final judgment, decree or order if the validity of the same was challenged by him on the plea of misrepresentation, fraud or want of jurisdiction

Word "validity" would relate to the legality, legitimacy and propriety of the judgment, decree or order challenged under S. 12(2), C.P.C.

Judgment, decree or order challenged under S. 12(2), C.P.C. was to be based on formal determination or adjudication in the proceedings in absence of which its "validity" could neither be challenged nor same could be decided

Judgment, decree or order which did not fall within such category could not be challenged under S.12(2), C.P.C.

Court was bound to determine the nature and effect of impugned judgment, decree or order while deciding an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. and then to see whether the requirements of said Section had been fulfilled by the applicant or not

No judgment or decree had been challenged in the present application and an order passed with regard to withdrawal of suit had been impugned

Element of conclusive determination of the rights of parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit was applicable to orders challenged under S.12(2), C.P.C.

No determination or adjudication had taken place nor any judgment, decree or order was passed in the suit on merits but suit was simply dismissed as not pressed without opposition of contesting defendants

Impugned orders which were passed without any conclusive determination or adjudication could not be challenged under S.12(2), C.P.C.

Applicants, in the present case, were not partners of the firm when impugned orders were passed

Applicants thus were not "aggrieved" by the impugned orders and they could not file the present application

Presumption would be that a party had admitted the contents of document (certificate issued by Registrar of Firms), in absence of any denial or dispute with regard to such contents of the document

Document had presumption of truth unless same was disproved by cogent and admissible evidence

Burden of proof that the entries in the record were wrong would be on the party who had alleged the same

Documentary evidence could be rebutted only by documents

Certificate issued by the Registrar of Firms with regard to retirement of applicants and induction of other partners was conclusive proof against them as same had not been suspended or cancelled

Statement, intimation or notice which had been entered in the register of firms would constitute conclusive proof against the person by or on whose behalf same was filed

Estoppel would apply against a person who had notified the Registrar of Firms that he/she had become a partner of the firm and he/she could not be permitted to resile from the same

Events of retirement of applicants and induction of other partners of firms took place prior to the passing of impugned orders

Such events were not done by the parties in connection with the proceedings before the court nor same were recorded by the court at the time of passing the impugned orders

Alleged fraud or misrepresentation, in circumstances, took place either outside the court or subsequent to the passing of impugned orders

Section 12(2), C.P.C. had limited scope and same could not be invoked on the plea of mala fide or abuse of process of the court

Fraud or misrepresentation should be specifically alleged with all relevant and material particulars in order to invoke the provisions of S. 12(2), C.P.C. and same should be in connection with the proceedings of the court and not prior to its initiation or after decision of the court

In the present case, no fraud was committed on the dates when impugned orders were passed, provisions of S.12(2), C.P.C., therefore, could not be invoked by the applicants

No allegation of fraud had been alleged against the contesting defendants of the suit

Limitation for filing an application under S.12(2), C.P.C. was three years and present application was time-barred

No application for condonation of delay had been filed to justify the delay of each and every day

Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. was dismissed in circumstances.

Whether a representation, and responsibility for its accuracy, continue after the identity of the contracting party changes

Respondents were owners of a grouse moor where commercial shooting took place

Respondents had sought to attract a tenant to invest in the moor to increase the number of grouse, and in such regard respondents' surveyor ("K"), contacted "A"

After considering the respondents' offer, "A" wrote an email to "K" expressing his concern that the shooting planned for that season would leave an inadequate grouse breeding population on the moor

"K" forwarded the email to the respondent's chief executive ("L")

"L" responded to "K" (the "critical e-mail") by referring to an earlier e-mail (the "August e-mail") written to some other interested party and invited "K" to forward the response to "A"

"L' had stated in the "August e-mail" that the grouse counts, which had been completed, had disclosed grouse stocks at the highest level in recent years; that the stocks appeared adequate to complete the booked shooting programme

"August e-mail" also contained a description of the count system used by shooting estates, and an extrapolation of the count

"K" forwarded the critical e-mail to "A", as suggested by "L"

"A" and his wife established a limited liability partnership (i.e. appellant) as the vehicle for their investment in the moor

Respondents were informed of "A"'s intended use of the partnership to take the tenancy of the moor

Lease was signed between the partnership and respondents

"A" subsequently discovered that the counting areas were not representative and that the grouse population was smaller than he had believed, therefore, he brought proceedings alleging that "L" had deliberately misled him in order to induce him to take the lease

Held, in a case such as the present one where the contracting parties were not the original representor and representee, it was possible that the inference could be drawn from the parties' conduct that they proceeded with the negotiation and conclusion of the contract on the basis that the accuracy of the representation continued to be asserted by the representor, implicitly if not expressly, after the identity of the prospective contracting party had changed

In such circumstances the representation may have continued to have a causative effect, so as to induce the conclusion of the contract, and the representor may be taken to have assumed responsibility for the accuracy of the representation towards the contracting party who relied upon it, even though that person was not the original representee

Change in the identity of the prospective contracting party (from "A" to the partnership) in the present case did not affect the continuing nature of the representation, or the respondents' continuing responsibility for its accuracy

Neither party drew a line under the previous discussions, after the partnership was formed, in order to begin afresh

Neither party disclaimed what had previously been said in the course of their discussions, or sought assurances that it could be relied upon as between the partnership and the respondents

Representation made in the critical e-mail remained operative in the mind of "A" after he began to act in the capacity of an agent of the partnership, up until the time when the lease was executed on behalf of the partnership

Partnership was thus induced to enter into the contract by such representation

In continuing and concluding the contractual negotiations with the partnership, through its agent "A", without having withdrawn the representation earlier made to "A" as an individual, the respondents by their conduct implicitly asserted to the partnership the accuracy of that representation; and they did so in a situation where it continued to be foreseeable that the representation would induce the other party to the negotiations to enter into a contract

Respondents therefore assumed a responsibility towards the partnership for the accuracy of the representation, and therefore owed the partnership a duty of care, which they failed to fulfil

Duty of care was owed by the respondents to "A" in respect of the representation contained in the critical e-mail

Duty of care was also owed by the respondents to the partnership, when they negotiated and concluded the contract on the basis of the discussions previously held with "A"

Respondents acted in breach of such duty of care, and were therefore liable in damages for any loss suffered by the partnership as a result

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

In a suit for rendition of accounts, plaintiff was required to establish, firstly, the partnership, secondly, the share of each member in the partnership, thirdly, the profit or loss, fourthly, the type of business, fifthly the duration of the partnership and sixthly the accounts.

Status of a co-sharer running a joint business was that of an agent having authority expressly or impliedly who was bound to render proper accounts to his principal on demand, under Ss. 182, 186 & 213 of the Contract Act, 1872.

Suit for declaration and rendition of accounts and mense profits in respect of joint-property wherein a commercial cinema was being run, was decreed

Validity

Status of the partners/parties as co-owners was admitted, therefore, the plaintiff's entitlement to half of the shares was not challenged by defendant

Defendant had claimed that the cinema business was running in loss, however, some shares from profit had been paid to the defendants, which meant that claim of plaintiff in profit was correct

Settlement of accounts could be made with mutual consent of partners/sharers at any time or at time of conclusion of partnership

Status of a co-sharer who was running affairs of a business was of either of an agent or principle

In a suit for rendition of accounts, plaintiff was required to establish, firstly, the partnership, secondly, the share of each member in the partnership, thirdly, the profit or loss, fourthly, the type of business, fifthly the duration of the partnership and sixthly the accounts

Trial Court had acted according to said criteria

Status of Agent of a co-sharer running a joint business was that of an agent having authority expressly or impliedly who was bound to render proper accounts to his principal on demand, under Ss.182, 186 and 213 of the Contract Act, 1872

No interference was required in decree of the Trial Court

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Suit for declaration and rendition of accounts and mesne profits in respect of joint-property wherein a commercial cinema was being run, was decreed

Validity

Status of the partners/parties as co-owners was admitted, therefore, the plaintiff's entitlement to half of the shares was not challenged by defendant

Defendant had claimed that the cinema business was running in loss, however, some shares from profit had been paid to the defendants, which meant that claim of plaintiff in profit was correct

Settlement of accounts could be made with mutual consent of partners/sharers at any time or at time of conclusion of partnership

Status of a co-sharer who was running affairs of a business was of either of an agent or principle

In a suit for rendition of accounts, plaintiff was required to establish, firstly, the partnership, secondly, the share of each member in the partnership, thirdly, the profit or loss, fourthly, the type of business, fifthly the duration of the partnership and sixthly the accounts

Trial Court had acted according to said criteria

Status of Agent of a co-sharer running a joint business was that of an agent having authority expressly or impliedly who was bound to render proper accounts to his principal on demand, under Ss.182, 186 & 213 of the Contract Act, 1872

No interference was required in decree of the Trial Court

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

In a suit for rendition of accounts, plaintiff was required to establish, firstly, the partnership, secondly, the share of each member in the partnership, thirdly, the profit or loss, fourthly, the type of business, fifthly the duration of the partnership and sixthly the accounts.

Status of a co-sharer running a joint business was that of an agent having authority expressly or impliedly who was bound to render proper accounts to his principal on demand, under Ss. 182, 186 & 213 of the Contract Act, 1872.

Section 4 of the Partnership Act, 1932 does not require that while entering into partnership agreement every partner must have to contribute equal share of capital or have a voice in the management of business proportionate to his capital contribution

Partnership deed executed in presence of witnesses cannot be discarded by the Assessing Officer merely on whims and surmises.

Effect.

Partnership Arbitration- -Partner does not enjoy an implied authority to make a reference to arbitration on behalf of other partners in 'the absence of authorisation under the partnership deed or otherwise in accordance with law or the nature of the business should be such that arbitration is incidental or part of day-to-day business.

Interest of a partner in partnership firm-Constitutes movable property.

Partnership-Assets-Every partner is, in absence of special agreement to contrary, equally interested in whole of partnership assets

ease-hold interest of one partner becoming asset of firm Other partner acquires interest therein.

Income-tax-Partnership-Proprietary business of father carried ; on by sons in partnership-Contravention of provisions of Act by father - Whether sons liable - Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, S. 23-C.

Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), Ss. 29 & 46(2) and Sales Tax Act (III of 1951), S. 12 Partnership-Certificated proceeding under S. 46 (2) of Act XI of 1922-Cannot be started, against person denying to be member of assessee-firm, without issuing him notices under S. 29 of Act XI of 1922 and under S. 12 of Act III of 195 I.

S. 16(3)(a)(ii) (as unamended in 1965) Partnership Minor admitted to benefits of partnership in which mother was a partner Share income of minor children, held, cannot be included in total income of mother Words "any individual" do not include female.

Registration-Death of partner-Minor sons admitted to benefits of partnership in place of deceased-Jointly entitled to deceased's share-Partnership whether could be registered -Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S. 26-A-[Chhotalal Devchand v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1958) 34 I T R 351 dissented from].

Dissolution of partnership between A & B-Deed of dissolution witnessing issue of cheque for Rs. 19,000 to B-Cheque dishonoured-Suit by B for settlement of accounts and declaration that deed of dissolution was null and void and along with plaint prayer for appointment of receiverHigh Court, trying suit, declining to appoint receiver but otherwise sufficiently protect­ing interest of B-In face of dissolution of partnership deed, dishonour of cheque whether or not revived partnership and whether appointment of receiver in circumstance necessary; trial Court to decide -Spacial Leave to Appeal against order of refusal to appoint receiver-Refused by Supreme Court.

High Caurt holding that there was no evidence to establish partnership as alleged in suit for rendition of account-Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider "whether findings of High Court based upon full consideration and eva'uation of evidence and all circumstances appearing in case".

Partnership-Special Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court against decree passed in suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts-Finding assailed one of fact-Leave refused.

S. 14-Partnership-Partnership between A and B-Machinery purchased by A and brought by him in partnership business as his further investment and receiving profit in lieu thereof to form of hire-Dissolution of partnership subsequently-B purchasing partnership business together with all machinery-A after dissolution of firm and purchase of assets by B cannot claim machinery as his own property.

Dissolution - Agreement entered into on dissolution-Can be set aside on ground of error to concealment of truth by other partner.

S. 10(2)(xvi)-Business expenditure-Partnership-Clause to agreement of partnership providing that on death of a partner certain sum shall be payable to his widow-Such clause in nature of overriding title and payment in nature of compensation to deceased partner for goodwill earned by firm by joint efforts of partners-Firm and partners bound to carry out obligation before distributing profits between partners -Income of partners thus diverting before reaching them Partners, held, entitled, in their personal assessment, to claim deduction of amounts so paid-Amount, however, not in nature of expenditure wholly for benefit of business arid firm, held, not entitled to claim its exemption.

Partnership Partnership-Registration-Members of Hindu undivided family holding shares in firm on behalf of fancily-Partition subdividing shares held by members-Members continuing to hold shares in firm as before-Firm whether entitled to registration. Interpretation of statutes-Taxing statute-Effect of other laws Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S. 26-A.

Partnership Partnership-Registration-Firm held to be genuine-One partner benamidar of another-Partnership whether entitled to registration-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S. 26-A.

Partnership Partnership-Registration-Scope of jurisdiction of Income tax Officer-Partners of manufacturing firms forming assessee firm, a separate partnership, in individual capacity-Validity Provision of capital by manufacturing firm on behalf of partner-Distribution of partners' share of profits between members of manufacturing firms Effect-Jurisdiction of High Court on reference-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, Ss. 26-A & 66-Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922, rr. 2, 3, 4 & 6-B.

Partnership Partnership-Registration-Application-Rejection of application on the ground that the partnership had no real existence Assessment of one applicant on the basis of return submitted by another-Validity-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922), S. 26-AConstitution of India, Art. 226.

Partnership Partnership-Registration-Application proper on date of application-Subsequent deviations from terms of partnership in distribution of profits-Whether ground for refusal of registration Income-tax Act, 1922, S. 26-A-Income-tax Rules, 1922, r. 4.

Partnership Interest on borrowed capital-Partnership-Gift of moneys by partner to wife-Debit entries against partner and corresponding credit entries in favour of wife of partner in partnership accounts Interest paid to wife-Whether allowable as interest on borrowed capital-Gift by mere book entries-Validity-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S. 10 (2)(iii).

Partnership Partnership-"Goodwill" - Meaning - Relationship of lease rights and other tangible things with sale of goodwill-Relevant law on subject fully discussed.

Partnership -"Goodwill" - Meaning - Relationship of lease in rights and other tangible things with sale of goodwill-Relevant law on subject fully discussed.

Parties to deed described as "partners"-Not by itself sufficient to constitute "partnership".

Partnership -Matter of agreement-Young persons having no capital of their own and not capable of making any contribution to business of firm-Cannot be presumed, in absence of other evidence, to have been admitted to partnership.

Partnership -Name and title-Partnership may carry on other business in another name within scope of terms of partnership deed.

Registration-Minor made full partner with liability for losses-­Effect. On March 27, 1946, an instrument of partnership was executed by four persons, one of them being a minor. The minor was admitted as a full partner and he was also a signatory to the instrument, though his natural guardian also signed it. Not only was he entitled to share in the profits but he was also liable to bear all the losses including loss of capital. All the four partners were to attend to the business, and if consent was needed, all the partners, including the minor, had to give their consent in writing. The minor was also entitled to manage the affairs of the firm, including inspection of the account books and was given the right to vote, if a decision on votes had to be taken:

­Dissolution-Penalty-Whether can be imposed on firm after dissolution-Fiscal statute-Interpretation-Writ-Whether will issue for relief against orders of income-tax authorities-Constitution of India, Art. 226.

Mixed question of law and fact-Not allowed to be raised for first time in appeal.

Partnership Mixed question of law and fact-Not allowed to be raised for first time in appeal.

S. 26-A-Partnership-Registra­tion-Some partners obtaining licence for dealing in tobacco­ Partnership as a whole exploiting licences-Licensing statute declar­ing every act of contravention punishable-Partnership whether legal-Whether can be registered-Cochin Tobacco Act (VII of 1084 Ss. 4, S, 6. Section 4 of the Cochin Tobacco Act, 1084 M. E., provided as follows: "Except as permitted by this Act or by rules framed hereunder, no one shall (a) possess tobacco for the purpose of sale, (b) transport tabacco, (c) import or export tobacco, (d) sell tobacco, or (e) cultivate tobacco". Section 5 empowered the Diwan to make rules under the Act and section 6 made punishable every act in contravention of the Act or the rules made thereunder or any licence or permit obtained thereunder. The notification dated May 20, 1948, issued under the Act classified the licences into three classes A, B and C. Holders of the A licence had the right to import and sell to holders of the B licence and to purchase tobacco from licensed stockists and other holders of the A licence. The holders of the B licence bad the right to sell tobacco to consumers and to holders of the C licence. The question was whether a partnership formed to exploit the A and B licences obtained by some of its partners and some strangers was legal and entitled to registration under section 26-A of the Income-tax Act:

S. 26-A-Partnership-Regis­tration-Deed indicating one partner entitled absolutely to expel the others-Conduct of business left to sole discretion of partner-validity of partnership. Three persons executed a deed of partnership, clauses 7 and 8 of which provided : " 7. If at any time partners Nos. 2 and 3 want to withdraw from the partnership either jointly or severally or if at any time partner No. 1 wishes to send out partners Nos. 2 and 3 jointly or severally, partner No. 1 has independent and absolute right and power to immediately exclude or discharge them. All amounts due to or from the outgoing partners should be paid in cash, the expenses incidental to such withdrawals being met by the outgoing partners. 8. All activities connected with the business etc., is to be conducted at the sole discretion of partner No. 1 and all his actions are binding on all the three partners equally." The question was whether the partnership was valid in law and entitled to registration under section 26-A of the Income-tax Act:

S. 23 (4)-Income-tax Rules, 1922, r. 2 (c)- Partnership-Registration-Cancellation for failure to submit return or produce account books-Appellate Assistant Commissioner-Power to receive application for registration. Where a registered firm fails to make a return required by a notice given under section 22 (2) of the Income-tax Act, or fails to comply with all the terms of a notice under section 23 (2), it is not incumbent upon the Income-tax Officer either to cancel registration or to refuse to renew it. Section 23 (4) vests a discretion in the Officer in that behalf and does not purport to prescribe an automatic cancellation of registration or refusal to renew the registration.

­Interest on capital supplied by minor-Whether income arising directly or indirectly from admission to benefits of partnership

­Whether to be included in father's total income.

Ss. 26-A, 30 (1) proviso ­Applicability - Partnership - Assessee's wife and brother only partners-Registration refused-Wife's share of profits treated as assessee's income in same proceedings-No opportunity of hearing given to assessee-Assessee, held, entitled to be heard-Appeal by assessee contesting inclusion of wife's income in his assessment­ Maintainability.

Whether can be recovered from other partner.

Ss. 44 &c 46(2)-Partnership-Discontinuance of business-Assessment and demand on firm-Failure to pay tax-Certificate of arrears forwarded to Collector-Recovery proceedings-Substitution of partner

Validity

(Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act (IV of 114), .S.s. 7 &11.)