Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. I have considered submissions made by both learned advocates and also perused order passed by District Magistrate, Baroda dated 15.05.2008 and order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.18735 of 2007 dated 18.10.2007 as well as order dated 20.02.2008 passed in SCA No.15361 of 2007 and also order passed in Special Civil Application No.4157 of 2010 dated 09.04.2010. The question is that there is a dispute between the parties- Smt.Virmatiben D.Mistri and present petitioners in respect to property which is the subject matter of Regular Civil Suit No.198 of 2007. The Revision Application has been preferred by Smt.Virmatiben D.Mistri on 16.06.2008 challenging order passed by District Magistrate, Baroda dated 15.05.2008. According to facts, Smt.Virmatiben D.Mistri, Shri Vijay Mistri and Shri Subhash Mistri are the members of one family. The management of Pratap Cinema was initially managed by husband of Smt.Virmatiben D.Mistri being a partner of partnership firm as per partnership agreement dated 15.04.1965. Unfortunately, Shri Dipak Mistri has expired on 19.05.1979 and thereafter according to allegation made by Smt.Virmatiben D.Mistri, entire property has been illegally and with collusion taken away in their hands by petitioners. One forged / fake partnership deed has been created in the year 1979 without consent and informing to Smt.Virmatiben D.Mistri, against which civil proceedings are going on. The petitioners have obtained licence of Pratap Cinema, against which objection was filed by Smt.Virmatiben D.Mistri which has not been considered by District Magistrate, Baroda and District Magistrate, Baroda has renewed it by order dated 15.5.2008 subject to result of Civil Suit No.198 of 2007. The petitioners preferred SCA No.18735 of 2007 wherein certain directions have been issued by this Court by order dated 18.10.2007 which are relevant and therefore, same have been considered by Revisional Authority. According to Smt.Virmatiben D.Mistri, this partnership firm of Pratap Cinema started w.e.f. 1.1.1948 and deed was made on 2.12.1949. Thereafter, it was amended on 28.9.1951 and 7.10.1956 where Shri Naranbhai Bhaichandbhai Mistri and Bhikhubhai Naranbhai Mistri were taken up as a partners and owner of Pratap Cinema has decided to obtain monthly rent from owner of Pratap Cinema. These facts have been proved on the basis of income-tax order produced by Smt.Virmatiben D.Mistri. On 15.4.1965, because of the death of Naranbhai Bhaichandbhai Mistri, new partnership has come into existence between Shri Bhikhubhai Narandas Mistri, Shri Dipakbhai Bhikhubhai Mistri and Vijaybhai Bhikhubhai Mistri. This fact is also proved by Smt.Virmatiben D.Mistri on the basis of income-tax order for the year 1966-67. On 19.5.1979, Shri Dipakbhai Mistri died and thereafter, another amendment is made in the partnership firm or new partner has been taken up in partnership firm or not, for that no documents have been produced by petitioners before District Magistrate, Baroda inspite of demanding it and facts are not disclosed by petitioners before District Magistrate, Baroda as to what happened to partnership firm after death of Shri Dipakbhai Mistri on 19.5.1979. Therefore, a doubt is created by Smt.Virmatiben D.Mistri that in light of this, in respect to ownership of Pratap Cinema and parterns as well as licensee who are concerned persons, that fact is not made clear by petitioners before District Magistrate, Baroda and whether subsequent to the death of Shri Dipakbhai Mistri, any new partnership agreement has been arrived or not and if it is arrived, between whom. The Revisional Authority has fixed hearing on 16.4.2009, at that occasion Smt.Virmatiben D.Mistri remained present and in writing, submission is made on 6.4.2009. At that occasion, Shri Subhashbhai Mistri and Shri Vijaybhai Mistri also remained present and written submissions also made by them on 6.4.2009. That Smt.Virmatiben D.Mistri has also produced certain documents, orders as well as property card No.20446 to 20457, 27981, 16871, 18689 as well as record produced of city survey office, Baroda. According to Shri Subhashbhai Mistri and Shri Vijaybhai Mistri in respect to property belonged to Pratap Cinema and also in respect to licence of cinema, one Civil Suit No.322 of 2006 is pending and another Civil Suit No.198 of 2007 in respect to renewal of licence is also pending before the Civil Court, Baroda. Therefore, according to them, licence is to be renewed subject to final outcome of civil proceedings and revision which has been filed by Smt.Virmatiben D.Mistri is required to be rejected. The Revisional Authority has demanded new partnership deed or subsequent partnership deed after death of Shri Dipakbhai Mistri on 19.5.1979 from both petitioners. But both petitioners have made clear before Revisional Authority that they do not have any subsequent partnership deed of the year 1979 and as and when it will be available, they will produce before the Revisional Authority. That Smt.Virmatiben D.Mistri has made written submission to Revisional Authority that Shri Subhashbhai Mistri and Vijaybhai Mistri have produced one document dated 19.5.1979 before the Civil Court in Special Suit No.322 of 2006 that has been considered to be a draft document, then on the basis of draft document, new entry can not be made before the Registrar of Firms in G form. Therefore, in the aforesaid G form, it has been made clear that because Shri Dipakbhai Mistri has tendered resignation, one Shri Subhash Mistri has been taken as a new partner w.e.f. 20.5.1979. So entry which has been made before Registrar of Firm in the year 1979 must be made on the basis of original partnership deed and without having valid partnership deed and considering draft partnership deed, such entry cannot be made in Registrar of Firm in the year 1979. Therefore, Smt.Virmatiben D.Mistri has made representation to Revisional Authority that let Shri Subhashbhai Mistri may file affidavit against letter dated 29.3.2010 in the department of Revisional Authority. Thereafter, Shri Subhashbhai Mistri has filed affidavit on 14.5.2010 before Revisional Authority and according to facts narrated in the affidavit, after death of his brother Shri Dipakbhai Mistri, on what basis said entry has been made in Registrar of Firm, he is not having any knowledge and dispute which has been raised by Smt.Virmatiben D.Mistri cannot be taken into account because it is a subject matter of Civil Suit No.322 of 2006. But Revisional Authority must have to consider provisions of Clause-8 of the Bombay Cinema Rules,1954 and no new document has been considered by Revisional Authority.

7. In light of this factual background, whether after death of Shri Dipakbhai Mistri, any subsequent new partnership deed has been arrived at between partners and whether any new partners have been incorporated in partnership firm or not, for that no documents have been produced by petitioners before Revisional Authority. The main aspect is that Smt.Virmatiben D.Mistri having any right over the property of Pratap Cinema and this being a family dispute between heirs of respective partners, for that the matter is pending before the Civil Court in respect to Civil Suit No.322 of 2006 and Regular Civil Suit No.198 of 2007. The petition which was filed by petitioners before this Court being SCA No.18735 of 2007 wherein certain observations made by this Court on 18.10.2007 and observations made in Para.9 has been considered by Revisional Authority. Thereafter, appeal preferred before the Division Bench of this Court being LPA No.2272 of 2007 where on 20.12.2007, petitioners were directed to produce on record the partnership deed which was re-constituted upon death of husband of Smt.Virmatiben D.Mistri and that be produced within 3 days. That said LPA was withdrawn by petitioners on 20.2.2008. Therefore, order passed by this Court on 18.10.2007 and 20.12.2007 remained intact and in light of facts, according to Revisional Authority while considering application for renewal of licence of Pratap Cinema, at least District Magistrate, Baroda must have to consider observations made by this Court in aforesaid two orders. In respect to legal rights of Smt.Virmatiben D.Mistri in the property of Pratap Cinema being a subject matter of civil proceedings but, Revisional Authority has rightly come to conclusion that before granting renewal of licence of Pratap Cinema, two orders which have been passed by this Court in SCA No.18735 of 2007 dated 18.10.2007 and order dated 20.12.2007 in LPA No.2272 of 2007 which remained intact and not set aside by higher authority. Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid facts keeping in mind without determining any rights of either party, certain directions have been issued while exercising powers under Section 10 of the Gujarat Cinema Act,2004 and also directed to District Magistrate, Baroda to decide within 45 days while remanding matter back to District Magistrate, Baroda. The Revisional Authority has directed to pass appropriate orders after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to respective parties and also require to file affidavit by respective parties and also to consider observations made by this Court as referred above dated 18.10.2007 and order which was passed by District Magistrate, Baroda while giving renewal of licence on 15.5.2008 which amounts to unreasoned order. Therefore, District Magistrate, Baroda must have to pass reasoned order considering what is the position of Smt.Virmatiben D.Mistri in light of partnership deed after the death of Shri Dipak Mistri, which has not been produced on record and what happened to partnership deed and whether Smt.Virmatiben D.Mistri having any right in place of her husband in the partnership firm or not and looking to entry of retirement of Shri Dipakbhai Bhikhubhai Mistri in Form G dated 26.2.1980 and on basis of this entry, what is the status of partnership firm in the year 1979 is required to be examined by District Magistrate, Baroda and whatever agreement has been produced by petitioners in the year 1979, this being a draft documents of partnership firm and whether it has been registered before Registrar of Firm or not and what would be the legal effect of partnership deed or agreement for the year 1979 which required to be considered by District Magistrate, Baroda and to examine whether because of death of Shri Dipak Mistri husband of Smt.Virmatiben D.Mistri, what would be the legal position or status of Smt.Virmatiben D.Mistri in the partnership firm of Pratap Cinema, is also required to be considered by District Magistrate, Baroda while considering application made by petitioners for renewal of licence of Pratap Cinema.