Find a Lawyer

ALI MUHAMMAD versus FAIZULLAH

ection Section 42 ????? Claims for dissolution of partnership, display of accounts and injunction - Contribution - Evidence parties The parties were partners in the business in the interest of the parties and the plaintiff claims that after the death of his father he was involved in the business. Had become cedar. The record form filed by them to bring the income tax statement in which the business was concerned about the contribution in which they were taxpayers also shows that the survey form filed by the plaintiffs shows that the firm's There is only one national tax number, as well as the plaintiffs and the defendants. Not understandable - The survey form had an identifiable value placed on it, due to its contradictory nature. In a partnership, the firm had to register its own return, while the partners also had to submit their own independent returns - the plaintiff failed to produce any records to show that in the form of a partnership. The business is continuing with the defendants, which do not include any details of the bank accounts, balance sheet, profit and loss account or even before the settlement of the account in which they claimed the profit of their shares. The suit was dismissed under circumstances [pp. 494, 497] A&B

P L D 2017 Sindh 488 

Before MuhammadJunaid Ghaffar, J

ALI MUHAMMAD and another—Plaintiffs

versus

FAIZULLAH and another—Defendants

Suit No. 1569 of 2000, decided on 16th December, 2016.

Partnership Act (IX of 1932)—

0 i / V : is '

—S. 42—Suit for dissolution of partnership, rendition of accounts and injunction—Partnership—Proof—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 partnershipbusiness, 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 fÓrm; 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. [pp. 494, 497] A & B

Punjab and Sindh Bank, Ltd. v. Kishen Singh Ghulab Singh and others AIR 1935 Lah. 350; Tulsiram Sanganeria and another v. Smt. Anni Bai and others AIR 1963 ORISSA 11; Raghumull v. Lunchmondas AIR 1917 Cal. 52; Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through L.Rs and others PLD 2007 SC 302; Fazle Ghaffor v. Chairman Tribunal Land Disputers, DIR, Swat at Chitral at Mardan and 6 others 1993 SCMR 1073 and Zakaullah Khan v. Muhammad Aslam and another 1991 SCMR 2126 distinguished.

Javed Rafat Khan v. Messrs Shabbir Tiles and Ceramics Limited through Representative PLD 2005 Kar. 1; Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur and Bhandara v. Seth Govindram Sugar Mills AIR 1966 SC 24; Mt. Sughra v. Babu AIR 1952 All. 506 and Narayanan Chettiar v. M.S.M. Umayal Achi (MANU/TN/0189/1959) rel.

Shehanshah Hussain along with S.Arshad Ali for Plaintiffs.

H.A. Rehmani along with Ms. Naheed Akhtar for Defendants.

Dates of hearing: 29th September and 27th October, 2016.

pakistani advocates Noorpur nooranga lawyer