Skip to content


Natla Bapiraju Vs. Puram Achuta Rajaju and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCommercial
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1910)20MLJ337
AppellantNatla Bapiraju
RespondentPuram Achuta Rajaju and anr.
Cases ReferredMarudamuthu Pillai v. Rangasami Mooppan I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....that the conditions of the license were in accordance with the policy of the act but not that the act itself prohibits a partnership between a licensed vendor and another. the decision in s. a. no. 870 of 1906 evidently proceeded on the view which we take; it was there held that a partnership entered into before the provision in the conditions of a license of a legal prohibition against transfer and sub-letting, could not be held to be an illegal partnership. in this case too the partnership was commenced before the date on which this prohibition in such license was legally promulgated by the commissioner of the abkari revenue, but not having the license before us, it is unnecessary for us to consider how that would affect the matter if at all.3. we must reverse the decree of the.....
Judgment:

1. On the second occasion on which this case came before the appellate Court, the parties agreed that an account should be taken by a Commissioner upon the result of which a decree should be made.

2. When the case came again on appeal from the District Munsif's decree after the account was taken, an objection was raised that under the license granted to the defendants, the contract of partnership between them and the plaintiff was illegal. The Subordinate Judge sustained this objection and dismissed the suit. The license is not on record and it is impossible for us to say that the partnership contravenes any condition therein set forth: but it is now contended that' apart from the license, the partnership is illegal as being prohibited by the Abkari Act, and Section 13 is referred to. We do not think that Section 13 prohibits a person who has no license from holding an interest in the manufacture or vend of liquor jointly with a licensed manufacturer or vendor, and the authority relied on.--Marudamuthu Pillai v. Rangasami Mooppan I.L.R. (1901) Mad. 401--does not compel us to hold that this is the effect of the section. In that case it was held that the conditions of the license were in accordance with the policy of the Act but not that the Act itself prohibits a partnership between a licensed vendor and another. The decision in S. A. No. 870 of 1906 evidently proceeded on the view which we take; it was there held that a partnership entered into before the provision in the conditions of a license of a legal prohibition against transfer and sub-letting, could not be held to be an illegal partnership. In this case too the partnership was commenced before the date on which this prohibition in such license was legally promulgated by the Commissioner of the Abkari Revenue, but not having the license before us, it is unnecessary for us to consider how that would affect the matter if at all.

3. We must reverse the decree of the Subordinate Judge and remand the A.S. Nos. 417 and 418 for disposal on the merits in pursuance of the agreement between the parties. The costs will abide the results.

4. The memorandum of objections is not pressed and is dismissed with costs.


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