S.M. Mohamed Ibrahim and Co. vs Superintendent of Central Excise and Others

Ismail, J.—This petition coming on for orders as to admission on this day, upon pursuing 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:�

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, pudukkottai 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 had 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.

Mr. Jummakhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, 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.