Skip to content


Marudamuthu Pillai Vs. Rangasami Mooppan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1901)ILR24Mad401
AppellantMarudamuthu Pillai
RespondentRangasami Mooppan and anr.
Cases ReferredBoistub Churn Naun v. Wooma Churn Sen I.L.R.
Excerpt:
abkari act (madras) - act i of 1886--restriction prohibiting licensed vendor of toddy from having interest in the sale of arrack--partnership agreement between licensed vendor of toddy and licensed vendor of arrack--illegality--void agreement. - - so that the contract between the parties was clearly in contravention of that rule. the provisions of the abkari act, as a whole, show clearly that every person carrying on abkari business as a principal must be licensed under the act......was entered into, it was a rule of the government under the abkari act that no person having a toddy license should be interested in an arrack business and vice versa. so that the contract between the parties was clearly in contravention of that rule. such a rule was not made merely for the protection of the revenue, but also to regulate the liquor traffic in the interest of the public see boistub churn naun v. wooma churn sen i.l.r. 16 calc. 436. the contract was therefore void ab initio as being opposed to public policy.2. apart from this, we should hold that the contract was invalid also on the ground that the license in each case was to be obtained by only one of the partners. the provisions of the abkari act, as a whole, show clearly that every person carrying on abkari business.....
Judgment:

1. According to the plaintiff he entered into an agreement with the defendant that they should be partners in the business of vending arrack and toddy, the plaintiff having a. license for toddy, and the defendant having a license for arrack. At the time this contract was entered into, it was a rule of the Government under the Abkari Act that no person having a toddy license should be interested in an arrack business and vice versa. So that the contract between the parties was clearly in contravention of that rule. Such a rule was not made merely for the protection of the revenue, but also to regulate the liquor traffic in the interest of the public see Boistub Churn Naun v. Wooma Churn Sen I.L.R. 16 Calc. 436. The contract was therefore void ab initio as being opposed to public policy.

2. Apart from this, we should hold that the contract was invalid also on the ground that the license in each case was to be obtained by only one of the partners. The provisions of the Abkari Act, as a whole, show clearly that every person carrying on abkari business as a principal must be licensed under the Act. The reason is obvious that, unless he were licensed, there could be no control over him. To hold that a person who has not got a license could still be partner with one who has a license and as such partner carry on the business with or without the other would enable the unlicensed partner to evade the liabilities intended by the law to he cast on persons carrying on abkari business.

3. The second appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs of the first respondent.


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