Skip to content


Shiam Bihari Lal Vs. Malhi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCommercial
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1917All54(1); (1917)ILR39All107; 38Ind.Cas.178
AppellantShiam Bihari Lal
RespondentMalhi and ors.
Excerpt:
u.p. excise act (iv of 1910) - rules framed under act, rule 82--licence to sell drugs--'transfer' or 'sub-lease' prohibited--contract to share profits, validity of. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the..........85 mad. 582 has also been relied upon. in that case the rule was that the licensees should not sell, transfer or sub-rent their 'privileges' without the permission of the collector. there is a marked distinction between the words used in that rule and in the present case, which, as we have mentioned, only forbids the 'transfer' or 'sub-lease' of the licence. the concluding words of the rule show that they refer to a person who was by virtue of the contract actually to be the holder of the licence. in our opinion, if the contract be as is alleged by the plaintiff, it is not void by virtue of rule 82. we accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and remand the case to that court with directions to re-admit the appeal under its original number and.....
Judgment:

Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff alleged that the defendants obtained a licence from Government) to sell drugs, and that they thereupon entered into a contract with the plaintiff to the effect that in consideration of the plaintiff advancing some money, the defendants would give the plaintiff the profits derived to the extent of one anna out of six annas, and in the event of there being a loss, the plaintiff would suffer the loss to the extent of one anna. The court of first instance found that the contract had been entered into and gave the plaintiff a decree. The lower appellate court has reversed the decree of the court of first instance, holding that the contract was illegal having regard to the provisions of the Excise Act and the rules made thereunder. The rule which is alleged to have been violated by the alleged contract is Rule 82 which is in the following terms: 'Transfers and subleases of licences are not permitted, except under sanction of the Collector. The Collector shall not allow a transfer or sub-lease unless good and sufficient reason be shown to his satisfaction and unless the transferee or sub-lessee is in his opinion fit and qualified to hold such licence.' The contract alleged by the plaintiff does not seem to us to be either a 'transfer' or a 'sub-lease' of the licence. The alleged contract would not entitle the plaintiff to sell any goods of any sort ox description covered by the licence. As between Government and the defendants, the latter would remain solely liable for the non-performance of the contract and the conditions under which the licence was granted. The case of Hormasji Motabhai v. Pestanji Dhanjibhai (1887) I.L.R. 12 Bom. 422 is relied upon. In that case the licensee had taken in a partner. It was part of the conditions of his licence that he should not take a partner. What he did, therefore, was contrary to the express conditions of his licence. The case of Nalain Padmanabham v. Sait Badrinath Sarda (1912) I.L.R. 85 Mad. 582 has also been relied upon. In that case the rule was that the licensees should not sell, transfer or sub-rent their 'privileges' without the permission of the Collector. There is a marked distinction between the words used in that rule and in the present case, which, as we have mentioned, only forbids the 'transfer' or 'sub-lease' of the licence. The concluding words of the rule show that they refer to a person who was by virtue of the contract actually to be the holder of the licence. In our opinion, if the contract be as is alleged by the plaintiff, it is not void by virtue of Rule 82. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and remand the case to that court with directions to re-admit the appeal under its original number and to proceed to hear and determine the same according to law having regard to what we have said above. Costs here and heretofore will be costs in the cause.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //