The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of import quota rights must be approved by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports before a reconstituted firm can obtain import licenses.

Headnote:
Import Quota Rights - Dissolution of Partnership - Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, Import Trade Control Policy - The court discussed the dissolution of a partnership and the transfer of import quota rights. The judgment highlighted the legal provisions of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and the Import Trade Control Policy, emphasizing the conditions for transfer of quota rights and the requirements for grant of import licenses.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, partners of a dissolved firm, challenged the refusal of import licenses by the authorities. They claimed that the transfer of quota rights related back to the date of dissolution and they should be entitled to import licenses from that date.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the transfer of quota rights must be approved by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports before the reconstituted firm could obtain import licenses. The court held that the petitioners were not recognized as transferees of quota rights at the time of their application for import licenses.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to import licenses from the date of dissolution of the firm or only after the approval of the transfer of quota rights by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the transfer of quota rights must be sanctioned by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports before the reconstituted firm could obtain import licenses. The court emphasized that the date of dissolution of the old firm had no relevance in the grant of import licenses.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal with costs.

JUDGMENT - 1. This is an appeal from the Judgment of Mr. Justice Shelat in Misc. Petition No. 81 of 1959. This petition was instituted by the two petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the decision of the first respondent, the Joint Chief Controller of Imports, Bombay refusing to grant a licence to them for importing certain motor vehicle parts and accessories.

2. Prior to August, 1957, the firm of Allied (A to z) Agencies consisted of three persons as partners, those persons being two petitioners Jagannath Prabhashankar Joshi and Shankerlal Prabhashanker Trivedi and one Shantilal Karsamji Bhatt. This firm carried on business of import and export and was recognized by the Import and Export Authorities as an Established Importer. Certain quota certificates were granted to this firm for importing au-tomobile parts and accessories.

3. By a Deed of Dissolution dated 6th of September, 1957 the firm was dissolved by the retirement of Shantilal as from the 3rd of August, 1957. The firm was thereafter reconstituted aad the only members thereof since then are the two petitioners. At the time of Shantilals retirement, a sum of nearly Rs. 75,000/- was found due and payable to him in consideration of his releasing in favour of the continuing partners his right, title and interest in the assets and goodwill ot the firm. On the 9th of September 1957 Shantilal made a declaration in which he has made the following declaration amongst others:

"Under the Deed of Dissolution of Partnership and Release dated 6th September, 1957 made between me (therein called "the Retiring Partner") on the one hand and the said Shri Jagannath Prabha-shankar Joshi and Shankerlal Prabhashankar Trivedi (therein called "the Continuing Partners") on the other hand, I as Retiring Partner having released relinquished transferred all my share right title interest claim and demand whatsoever in the said partnership business including all the stock in trade goods assets debts liabilities cash capital as also the goodwill, tenancy rights, quota rights in the Import and Export Licences etc. in favour of the said Continuing Partners".

Then again it is stated:

Accordingly I say that the said Mr. Jagannath Prabhashankar Joshi and Mr. Shankerlal Prabha-shanker Trivedi have since the 3rd day of August, 1957 been carrying on the said business for their own benefit in the same firm name and style and at the said place".

It may be mentioned, however, that neither the affidavit nor the Deed of Dissolution contains a clear statement to the effect that the continuing partners have taken over all the assets and liabilities of the dissolved firm.

4. On the 28th of September, 1957 the petitioners made an application to the second respondent, the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, for the transfer to them of the import quota certificates which were held in the name of the original firm and forwarded with that application copies of the Deed of Dissolution and of the declaration made by Shantilal. In that application they informed the second respondent that they desired to have the import licences formerly standing in the name of the old firm transferred to them. On 13th November, 1957, the second respondent informed the petitioners that their request for the transfer of the quota rights could not be considered because the documents furnished by them were defective. He pointed out that the Deed of Dissolution dated 6th of September, 1957 did not state in clear terms that the continuing partners had taken over the entire assets, liabilities anti goodwill of the dissolved partnership concern and that in the absence of any statement to that effect in the Deed of Dissolution the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports was of the opinion that the documents were defective. On the 3rd or December, 1957 the petitioners attorneys addressed a letter to the second respondent expressing their surprise "at the reading and interpretation of the Deed of Dissolution and Release da

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis