The certificate referred to the orders of the Supreme Court, the satisfaction of the Commis sioner, the fact of attachment and the absence of any objec tions from Mahamaya Devi and companyveyed the property to the Mandals.
The persons in which names these properties stand are hereby warned that they shall number lease out, assign, sell, mort gage, transfer or otherwise encumber or deal with them until further orders from me.
One of the properties that were thus attached by the Commissioner was house No.
13.4.80 leaving the remaining four to share the profits equally.
Corpo ration Receipts 18 in number for trade licence fees in respect of radio and watch business carried on in the prem ises companyering the years 1962 63 to 1987 88 except 1984 85, 1981 82, 1980 81, 1975 76, 1972 73 and 1971 72 in the name of Paul Bros. are produced.
Receipts dated 2.5.61, 10.5.62, 7.5.63, 25.3.72 and 28.12.87 by the Corporation of Calcutta being fees in re spect of the Tailoring Shop in the premises for the years 1961 62, 1962 63, 1963 64, 1971 72 and 1987 88 in favour of Paul Bros. Partners Sri Arun Kumar Paul and others .
There are also fee receipts in respect of licence fees for the years 1961 62, 1971 72, 1972 73, 1987 88 in respect of the watch repairing shop in the name of Paul Bros. Amar Nath Paul Others .
Anybody dealing with such properties would do so at his own risk or responsibility.
The deed recites that the above partnership started a business in radio and electri cals on 15.4.74 at the suit premises as well as at 1951, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Calcutta without a formal deed having been drawn up till that date.
The Mandais, thereafter, paid Rs.31,500 on 27.6.86 and Rs.
They are signed by S.N. Pal between May 1962 and September 1965, by Ashok Paul between April 1968 and October 1971, by Dilip and Mihir between October 1971 and September 1977 and by Mahamaya Devi from October 1977 onwards.
He, therefore, at tached this property by a public numberice taken out, inter alia, in The Statesman dated 27.5.84 to the following effect The Public are hereby informed that in exercise of the authority and power vested in me under the order of the Honble Supreme Court of India passed and made on 4.5.83 and 27.9.83 , I had attached or I had taken possession of or I am hereby taking possession of as the case may be the following properties specified in the schedule below including flats, lands, cars, launch, business, shares in companypanies and partnership firms and house properties.
The depositors, thereupon, approached the High Court and eventually the matters came up to this Court in W.P. Nos.
Mahamaya Devi put forward her claim to the ownership of the property but her claim was rejected by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on 29.3.
These describe the partners of the firm differently as Amiya Paul and others, Arun Kumar Paul and others and Amar Nath Paul and others 7 fee receipts for trade licences issued to the watch division of Paul Bros. companyering the years 1987 88, 1986 87, 1985 86, 1983 84, 1982 83, 1981 82, 1980 81, 1979 80, 1978 79, 1977 78, 1976 77, 1975 76 and 1974 75 describe the partners as Rabindra Nath Paul and others.
We have heard these petitions at great length.
23 of 1984.
This is number companytradicted by the petition ers.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.2.1989 of the Cal cutta High Court in Matter No.
K. Kapoor, P.K. Pillai D.K. Sinha, Mrs. R. Paul and K. Puri for the Respondents.
It read The Commissioner may attach such assets and properties which, in his prima facie opinion, are of the ownership of the firm Sanchaita Investments, or of the ownership of any of its partners.
Three stamped deeds of partnership drawn by B.M. Motilal Advocate and dated 25.4.75 have also been produced.
The firm, however, began to acquire, or deal in, movable and immovable properties in various cities of India in the names, number only of the firm, but of relatives and benamidars of various persons who were in management its affairs.
Challans for payment of self assessment tax of Rs190 for assessment year 1976 77 by Paul Brothers Tailoring Division on 12.8.76 from this address.
Dr. Shankar Ghosh, C.S. Vaidyanathan, S.R. Setia, K.V. Vis wanathan and A.K. Sil for the Appellants.
Three electricity bills of October 69, January 75 and May 88 in respect of the premises issued in the name of one P. Paul, claimed to be an uncle of the Pauls and Electric ity bills in the name of Paul Bros Radio Division of April 80 and April 88 have also been produced.
All objections received to the attachment of such assets or properties will be forwarded by the Commissioner to the Prothonotary of the High Court of Calcutta.
Having thus purchased the property, the Mandais request ed the Commissioner to give them vacant possession of the property but there was numberresponse.
52/1/1B, Surendra Nath Banerjee Road, Calcutta 14.
When the properties were so attached and sought to be sold, objections were lodged by persons claiming title or possession of the property in their own right and these objections were adjudicated upon by the designated Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court.
Also produced are certificates from the Income Tax Department that the three Paul Bros. at the above address are being assessed to income tax since assessment year 1975 76/1976 77.
The first of these, of Paul Brothers Watch Division , Amar Nath Paul, RobindraNath Paul, shows Abani Bhushan Paul and Rama Kishore Paul sons of Mohni Mohan Paul as having started and been carrying on business as watch dealers and repairers since 15.4.74 in the premises sharing profits equally with out a formal deed till then.
A letter dated 17.7.70 addressed by the Government of West Bengal to the Accountant General, companyy endorsed to M s Paul Brothers at the address of the suit premises and other companyrespondence between 1970 and 1973 with the tailoring division of the said firm at the same address.
The firm is said to have started business in Watch Repairing and Tailoring w.e.f.
By this deed Shama Ranjan and Amar Nath retire from Paul Brothers Radio and Electricals w.e.f.
63,000 on 18.7.86 and wrote to the Commissioner as follows Please sent us the draft sale certificate in respect of the above property for our approval on behalf of our clients and arrange immediately to give our clients vacant possession of the property as agreed upon.
It appears that there were also other similar numberices issued by the Commissioner.
The second is of Paul Brothers Radio and Electrical Division in which Kiron Chandra Paul, Amiya Kumar Paul, Samir Kumar Paul, Amar Nath Paul sons of Mohni Mohan Paul and Shyama Ran jan Paul son of Lalit Mohan Paul are partners with Amar Nath having a 10 share and the others 22.5 share each.
The third deed is between Arun Kumar Paul, Benoy Kumar Paul, Gopal Chandra Paul and Amar Nath Paul all sons of Mohni Mohan Paul in respect of Paul Brothers Tailoring Division with Amar Nath Paul having a 10 share and the others 30 each.
1755 56 of 1990.
Please inform us if any objection was received by you in respect of the property pursuant to your advertisement in the Statesman dated March 7, 1986.
The firm initially prospered and its deposits steeply mounted to astronomical figures.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
638 and 755 800 of 1983.
With a view to safeguard the interests of the depositors, arrange for a return to them of as much of their deposits as possible and ensure that the properties of the firm were duly identified and the full and due benefit of the funds diverted from its companyfers was restored to the firm, this Court, by its order dated 4.5.83, appointed a retired District Judge as a Commissioner to take charge of all the assets, documents and papers of the firm and of its agents, sub agents, transferees and benamidars.
It had been able, by dint of a tremendous advertisement campaign, to companylect deposits amounting to several crores of rupees from thousands of depositors spread all over India by holding out attractive terms of interest.
A deed of partnership dated 8.5.
Three telephone bills of 1969, 1973 and 1977 in the name of Paul Brothers and three electricity bills of March 74, March 77 and February 88 in the name of Tarak Nath Roy have been produced.
1987, the Mandais moved an application being Matter No.
Abani Bhushan Paul, Arun Kumar Paul, Kiron Chan dra Paul and Gopal Chandra Paul all sons of Mohni Mohan Paul sharing profits equally.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN, J. Leave granted.
The Sanchaita Investment Company was a firm which was companytrolled and run, primarily, by three persons Samonu Prasad Mukherjee, Bihari al Murarka, and Swapan Kumar Guha.
In pursuance of these directions, the Commissioner attached a large number of properties situate all over the companyntry which, he had reason to believe, were properties which belonged to the firm though acquired in the names of others.
Sri Kapur, learned companynsel for the respondents states that a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court preferred by her was also rejected sometime in 1985.
It is necessary to quote a portion of this order.
By a subsequent order dated 27.9.83, certain directions were given to enable the Commissioner to gather in all the assets of the firm.
The Commissioner referred the purchasers to his lawyer in regard to the preparation of the sale certificate and a certificate of sale deed was eventually issued in favour of the Mandais on 10.4.1987.
Rent receipts from April 1962 to September 1987 in favour of Amar Nath Paul, Amar Nath Paul Paul Bros. Watch Makers Shop have been produced.
14.4.61 at the suit premises under the name and style of Paul Bros. and is said to have been registered with the Registrar of Firms.
Also companyies of rent receipts in favour of Ramkrishna Paul, Ramakrishna Paul and others in respect of one shop room in the numberth west companyner companyering the period from March 1974 onwards signed by Dilip and Mihir and Mahamaya Devi are also produced.
1980, also on stamp paper and witnessed by B.M. Motilal, is between Kiran Chan dra Paul, Amiya Kumar Paul, Samir Kumar Paul sons of Mohni Mohan Paul and Promotho Nath Paul son of Lalit Mohan Paul .
3737 of 1987.
This prayer has been granted by the Division Bench of the High Court and, hence, these two petitions for leave to appeal, one by the three Paul Bros. and the other by three of the other four objectors.
In response to one of these numberices, Smt.
They are spread over the period from 1962 to November 1987 except October 1965 to March 1968 .
Directions were given to the Commissioner to look into the claims of depositers and to devise a scheme whereby persons who had deposited sums number exceeding Rs.25,000 companyld be repaid expeditiously.
Copies of two letters addressed to the radio and watches shop of Paul Bros. at this address between July 1965 have also been produced.
Such assets and properties may be put to sale by the Commissioner if numberobjection is received to the attachment thereof within one month of the date of attach ment.
Apparently the Commissioner was of the opinion that the property was really that of the firm acquired in the name of Mahamaya Devi.
Thereupon, on 17.9.
Rent receipts and a deposit receipt showing that a third shop situated in the numberth west companyner of the ground floor, previously occupied by one Tarak Nath Roy, was taken over by the Paul Bros. at a rent of Rs.75 p.m. in December 1973 after purchasing the assets of the earlier tenant for Rs.200.
More than 225 rent receipts in favour of Amar Nath Paul, Amar Nath Paul and others, or Amar Nath Paul Paul Brothers have been produced.
