This petition has been presented by Rustom F. Cowasjee and five others who were partners of a firm carrying on business under the name and style of East and West Steamship Company which stopped functioning in February, 1961 when they formed a new Company under the same name but with the addition of (1961) to it.
2. At the relevant, time, i.e. In January, 1974, two ships m. v. Rustom and m. v. Ohrmazd were being run by this firm.
3. On 1-1-1974 the Government of Pakistan promulgated the Pakistan Maritime Shipping (Regulation and Control) Ordinance, 1974, which on March 7, 1974, was converted into an Act. Section 5(1) (a) of this piece of Legislation empowered the Government of Pakistan to take over the management of any "establishment" and acquire the proprietary interests of its owners either wholly or in part.
4. On 1-1-1974 by a notification issued under the signatures of Akhtar Hanif, Managing Director of taken over Steamship Companies the Federal Government under the aforesaid Act, appointed Commander A. K. Y. Kazi as Officer on Special Duty and authorized him to break the seal of the premises of the aforesaid Company and to prepare an inventory of its movable assets etc. (Copy Annex. 'A').
5. On 24-2-1976 the whole of the proprietary interests of the partners of Messrs East and West Steamship (1961) were acquired by a notification issued under the signatures of the Joint Secretary to the Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Communications (Ports and Shipping Wing).
6. Section 14 of the Act saddled the Federal Government with the responsibility of acquiring "the shares or interests in such an establishment within a period of 90 days on payment of such compensation as may be determined by the Federal Government on the basis of the principles set out in the Schedule." In performance of this duty Capt. S. R. Salam (Rtd.), Director of Shipping of the Government of Pakistan sent a Letter No. 1-39/75-SH. II on 24-3-1976 to the six partners of the firm and informed them that "the not worth value of the partners listed in the said establishment has been determined at Rs. 24,32,279 on the basis of the latest audited balance-sheet of the Company on 28-2-1973. "
7. The letter, however, did not rest at this finding about liability of the Government to pay compensation to the partners and went on to say that "after making adjustments of the drawing made by them against their personal accounts during the accounting year 1973-74 prior to the take-over of the establishment by the Government which amounted to Rs. 24,46,667 a sum of Rs.
14,388 only is recoverable from you in excess of the amount of the not worth value payable to the said partners." All the partners who are now petitioners were required by this letter to pay immediately to the Managing Director of the Company a sum of Rs. 14,388 being the amount recoverable on the basis of the adjustments shown above.
8. The petitioners felt aggrieved by the take-over, the acquisition and this letter.
9. They were further aggrieved by the Government's revaluation of the assets of the taken-over concern.
10. The petitioners were expecting to receive their share of the profits made by the taken-over concern between January, 1974, and February 1976, the latter being the date on which the Federal Government was pleased to acquire the whole of the proprietary interests of the partners in the afore--mentioned establishment. They, however, were taken aback when they were told that they could only receive the amount at a minimum annual rate of return equivalent to 1 % above the bank rate although it was not the case of the respondents that the profits made by them for this period from this particular establishment was less than this minimum annual rate.
11. The petitioners were struck another blow when the Income-tax Department decided to assess them on the basis of the profits made by the establishment after take over treating them as profits having accrued to the petitioners despite the fact that the respondents bad steadfastly declined to pay the petitioners any penny out of these profits.
12. A sum of Rs. 66,62,821.85 which stood to the credit of the petitioners' current accounts on December 31, 1973, and represented an advance made by them to the firm out of their share of profits as distinguished from their capital, was withheld by the respondents and it refused to reimburse the petitioners in respect thereof.
13. The petitioners being of the view that the valuation of the profits and the assets of the establishment was incorrect and assessment made through procedure which violates the law of the land and established norms and refusal to pay to them the amounts of money due to them on the above account as well as in lieu of the amounts loaned by the petitioners to the Company, the respondents acted with material illegality and in excess of the authority conferred upon them by law.
14. The petitioners, therefore, prayed for a declaration that the petitioners are still the owners of the said establishment/ships, and in the alternative they are entitled to compensation computed in accordance with the aforesaid Act, and prayed that the respondents be directed to make payment of the compensation and other amounts due under the law to the petitioners and also furnish them copies of audited balance-sheets/accounts/ assessment orders/directions.
15. The objection to the take-over of the establishment is based upon the assertion that in the notification of take over the entity whose premises and control etc. Were being taken over was named as East and West Steamship Company. It is asserted that the East and West Steamship Company ceased operation at the end of February, 1961 and was no longer in existence after that date. The petitioners founded a new firm by the name of East and West Steamship Company (1961) which was registered on 1-3-1961, and on the date of the take over it was this firm which was operating two ships namely m. v. Rustom and m. v. Ohrmazd which were the subject of the take over. It has been submitted that since the East and West Steamship Company whose assets were being taken over had ceased to exist in 1961, the notification was completely infructuous and could not be utilized for the purpose of taking over the assets etc. Of the East and West Steamship Company (1961) which was not named in the notification.
16. On the factual plain the assertions made are correct and have not been denied by the respondents. The case of the respondents, however, is that even according to the showing of the petitioners no firm by the name of East and West Steamship Company was in existence in 1974 when the take-over took place and, therefore, the mere fact that the figures 1561 were not mentioned as a part of the name of the establishment would make none the difference because no doubts could have been created as to the entity of the establishment which was being taken over since the only firm which carried the name of the East and West Steamship Company on the relevant date was the East and West Steamship Company (1961).
17. Even otherwise this is a case of misdescription which does not affect the validity of the notification issued by the Government. It was held) by the Supreme Court in Piao Gul v. The State (PLD 1960 SC 307):- "Postulating that the trial of offences under section 8 of the North- West Frontier Province Corps Law, 1941, could only be competently held before a Court of Session, and the Court of Session for the Khyber Agency is the Court of the Political Agent, it must follow that the trial of the present appellant was conducted before Mr. Faridullah Shah in his capacity as a Court of Session under the Cr. P. C., 1898 as applied to the Khyber Agency. There was no commitment. The trial was conducted by the warrant procedure. In that view of the matter, the solitary misdescription. In the charge, i.e. where the Court described himself as District Magistrate would be without effect upon the legality of the trial. It would be a misdescrip--petition which was demonstrably incorrect, falling within the maxim false demonstratio non nocat. It would therefore be without effect upon the validity of the proceedings provided that the person conducting those proceedings possessed in himself the capacity to do so. Mr. Faridullah Shah as Political Agent possessed the capacity of a Court of Session to try the charges against Piao Gul, and to impose a sentence of 14 years' imprisonment."
18. Moreover even if the figures 1961 had been omitted in the notifica--petition of 1974, the order of acquisition subsequently issued vide Ports and Shipping Wing of the Ministry of Communications' letter No. 1-39/75-Sh.II dated 24-2-1976 clearly mentioned the name of the establishment as East and West Steamship Company (1961) (Appendix EE to the written statement) and, therefore, even if any omission had been made in the earlier notification its effect, if any, had been nullified by giving the correct name in the later notification and the petitioners can, therefore, have no grievance on this score. The objection on this score is, therefore, not well founded and is hereby repelled.
19. It has then been claimed that the petitioners are entitled to compensation computed in accordance with the said Act. Nobody can dispute this claim because the Act itself lays down the manner in which compensation is to be computed and paid to persons whose assets etc. Have been taken over. The main dispute on this score centres around the "not worth value" of the establishment computed by the respondents.
20. More than a year before the take-over, the establishment got m. v. Rustom & m. v. Ohrmazd surveyed by a firm of Marine Surveyors namely Messrs G. B. Potts & Co. Who revalued the ships at Rs. 1,02,30,000 and Rs. 5,37,50,000 respectively. (Annexures E & F to the petition). The partners of the firm, therefore, made an entry in their accounts on 28-2-1973 revaluing the ships accordingly. In determining the not worth value of the establishment the respondents have disallowed this revaluation of the two ships and in computing the said value they have taken into account the value of the ships as shown in the books before this revaluation took place. The reason given for this is that the Government has allowed revaluation only in those cases in which loans in foreign currency were due from the establishment and they were hit by the devaluation of the Pakistani rupee. The respondents say that since there was a loan only in the case of m. v. Ohrmazd while there was none in the case of m. v. Rustom, the partners were not entitled to revalue the later. As for the former, it is asserted that revaluation of m. v. Ohrmazd had also been made after devaluation wherefore a further revaluation in February, 1973 was not accepted by the Government and the balance-sheet initially prepared by the auditors was rejected and another one was got prepared on' 14-2-1975 the ships were shown as not revalued and the same was approved by the Managing Director. As has already been shown above after action had been taken with regard to the Company under section 5 of the Pakistan Maritime Shipping (Regulation and Control) Ordinance, 1974, it was imperative for the Government to acquire the proprietary interests within a period of 90 days on payment of such compensation as may be determined by the Federal Government on the basis of the principles set out in the Schedule. The relevant portion of the Schedule to the Act runs as follows :- "Principles and the manner for payment of compensation in respect of the shares or proprietary interests of an establishment acquired by the Federal Government.
(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(2) Where the whole or a portion of the proprietary interests in such an establishment is acquired by the Federal Government the value of the compensation for the interests, so acquired shall be assessed at the not worth value.
(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(4) Definitions-
(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(b) `Net Worth Value' shall mean that value of the proprietary interests of a company or other person in an establishment, which is acquired under the Order, as determined by the auditors appointed by the Federal Government on the basis of the latest annual audited Balance-- sheet or, where no audited Balance-sheet is available, on the basis of the latest annual Balance-sheet of such establishment to be verified by the auditors appointed by the Federal Government for the purpose. The Net Worth Value shall be determined by valuing the fixed Tangible Assets appearing in the Balance-sheet at their written down value, and valuing the Current Assets, e.g. stocks, inventory, work in progress, advances and prepayments, cash and bank balances, at their cost or market value, whichever is lower. From the sum total of the fixed and the Current Assets so valued as aforesaid, all the outstanding liabilities appearing in the Balance-sheet shall be deducted, thereby arriving at the Net Worth Value of the proprietary interests in such establishment."
21. The amount of compensation for the interests so acquired was, therefore, to be assessed at the Net Worth Value. The word `shall' has been used in paragraph 2 of the Schedule and no discretion was, therefore, left to the Government in the matter and they could not deviate from the principles of compensation on the basis of any legal advice claimed to have been received by them. So long as the compensation was assessed at the not worth value, the persons entitled to the compensation had to submit to it and could not raise any other objections. If, however, assessment was made on any other principles the owners of the proprietary interests would be on strong grounds in claiming that the assessment should be made in accordance with the principles laid down in the Schedule.
22. According to 4(b) Net Worth Value means the value of the proprietary interests-
(a) as determined by the auditors appointed by the Federal Government ;
(b) on the basis of the latest annual audited balance sheet;
(c) by valuing the fixed Tangible Assets in the Balance-sheet at their written down values ;
(d) the current assets at their cost or market value whichever is lower ; and
(e) the liabilities appearing in the balance sheet were to be deducted therefrom.
23. In the present case it is not denied by the respondents that there was in existence a "latest annual audited balance sheet". The auditors who prepared it were Rahim Jan & Company, Chartered Accountants. In reply to a letter written by the Officer on Special Duty, East and West Steamship Company (1961), Messrs Rahim Jan & Companys ent a reply on 22-1-1975 and the relevant portion thereof may be quoted as follows:- "This has reference to your letter of 15th instant. We note that instructions have been received by you from the Chairman, Pakistan Shipping Corporation Board, to revise the audited accounts for the year ended 28th February 1973, ignoring revaluation of the ships and thereafter get the accounts for that year reaudited by us and in terms of those instructions, we have been called upon to revise the audited accounts for the year ended 28th February, 1973, ignoring the revaluation of the ships.
When the revised statements of accounts are resubmitted to the auditors for their initial/signature, the question of reaudit will not arise except that the auditors would verify whatever adjustments as are made in the accounts, and mention in their certificate the alterations) made in the original audited statement of account.
It may here be pertinent to point out that the Schedule to the Pakistan Maritime Shipping (Regulation and Control) Act, 1974, provides that compensation for proprietary interest to be assessed at the Net Worth Value "determined by the auditors appointed by the Federal Government on the basis of the latest annual audited Balance Sheet of such establishment. `The Net Worth Value' shall be determined by valuing the fixed tangible assets appearing in the balance sheet at their written down value.
In the case of East and West Steamship Company (1961), the latest Balance Sheet, i.e. as on 28th February, 1973, was duly audited and certified by the auditors of the Company as required by the Schedule and was handed over by the Pakistan Shipping Corporation Board to the auditors appointed by the Federal Government to determine the "Net Worth Value". If after this, any alternation in the accounts are made the Company's auditors will merely verify the alternations/adjustment and mention this fact in their audit certificate.
The revised statements of accounts may please be initialled by you before submitting the same to us."
24. The position had been made crystal clear by the auditors. It had been certified that a properly audited balance-sheet of the Company, that is to say, the latest balance-sheet as on 28-2-73 was in existence. It was further clarified that the auditors could not accept any change in that particularly in view of the provision for the determination of the net worth value in the act and, therefore, they declined to revise the balance-sheet as, they rightly pointed out, they had no authority to do so.
25. One would have expected the respondents to have accepted this unambiguous stand of the auditors in view of the provisions of the Schedule to the Act. In paragraph 17 of the written statement the respondent accepted that- "The latest audited balance-sheet available at the time of acquisition of the proprietary interests was that as at 28-2-73."
Nevertheless as is clear from Paragraph 19 the respondents admitted that "The Balance Sheet initially prepared by the auditors of the firm containing the revaluation on 28- 6-74 had not been approved by the Managing Director and it was the audited balance-sheet of 14-2-75, without revaluation, which was approved by him (the Managing Director)."
26. It has not been demonstrated to me how, on what authority and under what law the Chairman of the Pakistan Shipping Corporation Board or the Managing Director could change the latest annual audited balance sheet and approve a balance-sheet prepared under orders of the Government despite the clear provisions of paragraph 4(b) of the Schedule and the stand taken by Rahim Jan & Company, the auditors of the establishment.
27. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the respondents changed the auditors of the Company presumably because they did not like the stand taken up by Messrs Rahim Jan & Co.
Who were not prepared to act in a manner proposed by the respondents and which was completely contrary to the law for the time being in force. They substituted for Rahim Jan & Company Messrs A. F. Ferguson & Co. Who were removed on a representation made by the petitioners based upon the strained personal relations between the petitioners, and that Company.
Even then the Government appointed Messrs Ford, Rhodes, Robson and Morrow as auditors who sent their report vide their letter dated 10-6-75. The Government did not accept this report either and decided to appoint fresh auditors and Messrs Hyder Bhimji & Company were so appointed to determine the not worth value. All this shows that the respondents were bent upon setting at naught the provisions of the Act particularly with regard to the determina--petition of the Net Worth Value and continued to change auditors after auditors till they were able to get the Net Worth Value determined in accordance with their own lights but in complete negation of the provisions of the law.
28. So far as the revaluation of the ships is concerned no provision of law has been quoted before me by the respondents to show that it was not permissible to do so. On the other hand the petitioners have filed Annexure `G' which is a copy of the letter from Messrs A. F. Fergusop & Company, Chartered Accountants, dated 7-1-1975 on the subject of revaluation of fixed assets. - A portion of the letter is reproduced below- "You have asked us to give our views on whether-
(a) according to the generally accepted accounting principles fixed assets can be revalued in certain circumstances, and such fixed assets shown at their revalued figures on balance-sheets drawn up subsequent to the revaluation,
(h) any increase in value shown by such revaluation can, according to the generally accepted accounting principles, be credited to a capital reserve account,
(c) such capital reserve should be treated as part of the share-holders' equity,
(d) such revaluation is permissible under the Companies Act and other legislations dealing with accounts of limited companies.
2. Our answers to the above questions are in the `affirmative' and our reasoning for coming to these views are discussed below."
29. . Cogent reasons in respect of the answers given by the Company follow thereafter. One of the salient features of the letter is- "Therefore, whenever these have moved materially away from the book values of any fixed assets, it may become desirable for the purpose of reflecting a more realistic values of the fixed assets in the balance sheet to substitute the revalued figures for the historical book figures. This may also become desirable in the case of those types of stock-in--trade which have to be held in stock for a long period."
It has also been stated therein- "It is a generally accepted accounting principle that any decrease in value should be written off against available capital or revenue surplus, but any increase should be treated as capital surplus only and, therefore, not available for distribution as dividend. Based on this principle such surplus is generally credited to a capital reserve account."
5. Capital reserve account is, of course, a part of the shareholders equity." ,
30. The assertions made in this letter have not been controverted and rightly so because on no available basis can loopholes or lacunae be found in them.
31. It is, therefore, clear that the revaluation of assets made in the balance-sheet of 1973, was not only not opposed to any principle of law or practice but, in fact, was in complete accord with the latter.
32. It may also be mentioned that the revaluation was incorporated after proper survey of the two ships by a firm of Marine Surveyors, namely Messrs G. B. Potts & Company.
33. In purported exercise of the right to deduct all the outstanding liabilities appearing in the balance-sheet from the sum total of the fixed and the current assets, the respondents have deducted a sum of Rs. 24,46,667, on account of "drawings made by the petitioners against their personal accounts during the accounting year 1973-74 prior to the take-over of the establishment by the Government." A sum of Rs. 66,62,821.85 stood credited to the petitioners' current accounts with the firm as on 31-12-73. This amount represented advances made by the petitioners to the firm out of their share of profits.
34. This amount of money has been disallowed to the petitioners by the Government.
35. This amount was in excess of the agreed capital contributed by the petitioners to the business and as is clear from the accounts and the stand taken up by the respondents as well, this amount stood to their credit in current accounts.
36. A reference in this connection may be made to the relevant portion of section 13(d) of the Partnership Act which runs as follows:- "subject to contract between the partners; (d) a partner making for the purposes of the business any payment or advance beyond the amount of capital he has agreed to subscribe is entitled to interest thereon at the rate of 6 % per annum."
Similarly section 48(b) runs as follows- "The assets of the firm including any sums contributed by the partners to make up deficiencies of capital shall be applied in the following manner and order-
(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(2) in paying to each partner rateably what is due to him from the firm for advances as distinguished from capital."
These two provisions of the Partnership Act make it clear firstly that advances beyond the amount of capital can be made by the partners for the purpose of the business of the firm and they are entitled to interest thereon at the rate prescribed by the law itself, secondly they are entitled to bed reimbursed in respect of it from the assets of the firm.
37. It does not need any reiteration that the amount of capital cannot be either increased or withdrawn except with the consent of all the members of the partnership as has been explicitly stated by Lindley in the 11th Edition of his classic on Partnership at page 406.
38. It is not denied by the respondents that the capital account of the firm has always to be kept separately from their current account.
39. Section 19 of the Act deals with creditors and provides that- "a creditor of a managed establishment may apply to the Federal Government for payment to him of the amount due to him from the establishment. In case the establishment does not pay the amount despite directions from the Government to do so the same can be recovered as an arrears of land revenue and paid to the creditor."
The petitioners being creditors in respect of the aforesaid advances made by them are entitled to be reimbursed in respect of them with the usual interest.
40. The petitioners have submitted that under section 14 the interest had to be acquired by the Government within a period of 90 days on payment of compensation. Since no compensation has been paid so far, the take-over of the establishment by the Government has become void and ineffective and the establishment should be returned to the petitioners
41. The reply of the Government is that the period of 90 days is only directory provision of law and not mandatory. This submission holds no water absolutely. Section 14 uses the word `shall' in the context of acquisi--petition and it has not been demonstrated to me how it could be construed to be directory use of the word. Even in cases where the word `may' has been used in connection with individual's rights the law of interpretation is clear that it shall be construed as mandatory and not directory. Here valuable rights of citizens are involved and there is no reason to accept the submissio that `shall' should be interpretted as directory in the present case.
42. Even if the word 'may' is used in a Statute "where a power is deposited with a public officer for the purpose of being used for the benefit of persons who are specifically pointed out, and with regard to whom definition is supplied by the legislature of the conditions upon which they a entitled to call for its exercise, that power ought to be exercised and the Court will require it to be exercised." Julius v. Bishop of Oxford ((1880) 5 A C 214 Lord Blackburn says- "The enabling words are construed as compulsory whenever the object of the power is to effectuate a legal right."-Crates on Statute Law, 7th Edition, p. 285."
43. The acquisition having been made within the specified period is complete. The mere fact that compensation has not been paid so far, particularly when there is a dispute, as in the present case, regarding the determination of the amount of compensation, the acquisition cannot be avoided simply because of non-payment in time. It will, however, entitle the petitioners to interest at the Bank rate on the amount due to them as Net Worth Value from the day beginning with the end of 90 days from the acquisition of the proprietary interests of the partners
44. It is the grievance of the petitioners that they are entitled to share in the profits of the establishment till such time as the Federal Government acquired the whole of the proprietary interests in the establishment by Notification No. 1-39/75-Sh. Il dated 24-2-76 (Annexure EE to the Written Statement). On the contrary the case of the Government is that the petitioners are entitled only to the minimum return at one per cent above the Bank rate under section 26 of the Act. The Government argues that there is no provision in the Act which entitles the partners of a taken over establishment to the profits earned by the firm during its Management by the Government.
Reliance has been placed upon section 4 of the Partnership Act, 1932, and it has been asserted that the partners ceased to function in relation to the business of the firm w. e. f. 1-1-74 and, therefore, there was no carrying on of business by all the partners or any of them acting for all. According to the respondents the petitioners would, therefore, not be entitled to any profits. The fact is that the order dated 1-1-74 was only with regard to the taking over of the Management of the establishment by the Federal Government and the proprietary interests in it remained with all the partners and had to be acquired separately as was done by Notification No. 1-39/75-Sh. II dated 24-2-76 which runs as follows: "Whereas the Federal Government considers it necessary in the public interest so to do.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub--section (1) of section 5 of the Pakistan Maritime Shipping (Regulation and Control) Act, 1974' (Act No. XVIII of 1974), the Federal Government is pleased to acquire the whole of the proprietary interests of the partners of Messrs East and West Steamship Company (1961), in that establishment.
The partners whose proprietary interests stand acquired should be informed accordingly."
45. The mere fact, therefore, that the respondents were managing the establishment from the 1st of January, 1974, did not mean that the petitioners had been divested of the proprietary interests in it.
They continued to be the proprietors right up to the issuance of the notification (Appendix EE quoted above). The provisions of section 4 of the Partnership Act do not imply that the partners or one of them should be physically running the whole show himself. The business of large partnership firms is- invariably run by managers but it does not take them out of the class of firms or partnerships or make section 4 inapplicable to them. The respondents were only acting as managers of the Company and the argument that since the partners were not directly managing the affairs they are not entitled to profits is a fraud upon section 4 of the Partnership Act and the whole concept of Partnership and firms.
46. Section 21 of the Act specifically recognizes the right of any person having a proprietary interest in a managed establishment to complain to the Board or the Federal Government in respect of any action taken by the Managing Director in relation to the affairs of the establishment. It shows that the persons having proprietary interests in the establishment are entitled to an effective voice in matters relatable to the affairs of the establishment and the law authorizes them to call the Managing Director to order through the Board or the Federal Government.
47. Section 26 which deals with minimum return provides a guarantee on behalf of the Government to the proprietors of such establishments of a minimum annual rate of return equivalent to 2 % above the Bank rate. The use of the word `minimum' in this section is crucial for its interpretation. If the return was gratuitous and was not relatable to the profits of the establishment the word `minimum' need not even be used. The word `minimum' has been used only with a view to assuring the proprietors of the establishments that even if the Company were to go in a loss under Govern-- ment's management, they will, in any case, be paid at least the minimum return. In case the establishment makes a profit which is more than the minimum return guaranteed under section 26 the proprietors of the' establishment as proprietors are entitled to all the profits that are made by the establishment under Government's Management. Until the Government acquires the proprietary interests it can on no legal, moral or ethical basis appropriate the profits of the establishment to itself in which it has no interest whatsoever, save that it has taken upon itself the Management pending the acquisition of the proprietary interests
48. I, therefore, hold that the respondents were bound to determine the Net Worth Value in accordance with the principles enunciated above and the stand taken up by Messrs. Rahim Jan & Company in the letter quoted above is in accordance with the law for the time being in force. The Net Worth Value determined in defiance of these is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The respondents shall proceed to determine the Net Worth Value in accordance with the principles enunciated above.
49. The petition is, therefore, accepted with costs. The following decisions are declared to be without lawful authority and therefore void-
(1) The revision of the latest audited balance-sheet (1973), and the refusal to accept the revaluation of the ships as carried out by the Company before the taking over of the establishment.
(2) The decision to deduct a sum of Rs. 24,46,667, on account of drawings made by the partners from their personal accounts during the accounting year 1973-74.
(3) The decision refusing to make over the profits to the petitioners from the time of the take over up to the date of the acquisition of the proprietary interests.
(4) The decision to refuse to supply the copies of all the documents asked for by the petitioners.
(5) The decision not to reimburse the petitioners in respect of the advances made by them to the firm and forming part of their current accounts with it.
The respondents shall determine the not worth value of the establishment on the basis of the latest annual Balance Sheet of the Company originally existing at the time of take over of the Management without making any alterations in it. They shall reimburse the Petitioners in respect of the. Advances made by them to the Company and referred to above. The Respondents shall furnish to the Petitioners copies of all the documents claimed by them and pay to them the profit, if any, made by the Respondents from the establishment up to the time the assets were acquired.