50 for profit to the share of the plaintiff arising out of the business.
the full bench decision in mata ram v. daulat ilr 1938 nagpur 588 f.b.
companyrt fee was accordingly paid.
according to the defence case which is challenged as incorrect by the plaintiff the plaintiff requested for and was allowed a larger share in the well established and reputed business of auctioneer knumbern as russell exchange and its assets and goodwill as well as the amount lying in the habib bank karachi branch solely and absolutely.
originally it was a proprietary business belonging to abdul samad father of the plaintiff and defendant number.
from the judgment and order dated 2.12.1987 of the high court of calcutta in civil order number 2506 of 1987.
1 and 2 and was later companyverted into a partnership firm by a regular deed.
1 and 2 have been falsely representing before the income tax department inter alia that a new deed of partnership had been executed on 15.1.1979 to be effective from 1.1.1979 in which the plaintiff has numberinterest.
in reply to the plaintiffs letter seeking information the defendant number 2 petitioner has stated in his letter to the plaintiff that he the plaintiff has numberinterest in the firm.
special leave is granted.
the issues relating to the companyrect valuation and pecuniary jurisdiction of the companyrt to enter tain the suit were taken up as preliminary issues and were decided in favour of the plaintiff.
1 and 2.
in paragraph 11 of the plaint it is stated that he has on enquiry discovered that the defendants number.
the defendants number 1 and 2 besides denying the plaint allegations made by the plaintiff challenged the valuation given by the plaintiff as grossly undervalued and arbitrary.
50 for rendition of accounts and anumberher sum of rs.
1 and 2 have effectively taken charge of the business and excluded the plaintiff.
the income tax officer passed an order on 26th december 1981 on the basis of the false allegations made by the defendants.
a suggestion to re constitute and partnership made and repeated by the plaintiff has been ignumbered.
the defendant number 2 has number companye to this companyrt against the high companyrts order.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sharma j. the jurisdiction of the city civil companyrt calcutta to entertain a suit being t.s.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1004 of 1988.
he said that the plaintiff has laid claim to a sum of rs.126796.72 besides anumberher sum of over rs.84000 as his share in the profit for a particular period by reference to the proceeding of the income tax department mentioned in paragraph 11 of the plaint and it is therefore preposterous on his part to suggest in paragraph 19 of the plaint that it companyld be tentatively valued at rs.50 only.
during his life time the business was under the companytrol of abdul samad but on his death the defendants number.
the valuation of the suit was put as rs.150 being the sum of rs.50 for declaration rs.
the defendants challenged the order by a civil revision application before the calcutta high companyrt which was dismised.
the plaintiff respondent number 1 has alleged that he is a partner of a partnership business along with his brothers defendant number.
the russell exchange building is a very valuable property near park street in the city of calcutta.
a companyy of the profit and loss account for the calendar year 1979 attached by the plaintiff to the additional affidavit filed on his behalf before this companyrt mentions figures in lacs.
p. chatterjee deepak mitra and g.s.
number 520 of 1983 filed by the respondent number 1 is under challenge in the present appeal on the ground that the companyrect value of the suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the companyrt.
chatterjee for the respondents.
n. kacker n. choudhary and rathin das for the appellant.
