High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : I.N.Modi
MOHRILAL - Appellant
Versus
BALLABH - Respondent
Second Appeal 326 Of 1961
Decided On : 12/13/1966
PARTNERSHIP - DISSOLUTION - UNLAWFUL BUSINESS - TOBACCO BUSINESS WITHOUT LICENCE - CENTRAL EXCISES AND SALT ACT, 1944 - SECTIONS 6, 9 - RULES 178(2), (4) - ILLEGALITY OF PARTNERSHIP - NO DISSOLUTION OR RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs and defendant entered into a partnership agreement to carry on the business of sale and purchase of tobacco, among other commodities, under the name 'Ramavatar Company'. The defendant held a license for wholesale tobacco business under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, while the partnership did not. The plaintiffs filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts, which was dismissed by the trial court but remanded on appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the tobacco business was part of the partnership business and that the partnership was illegal as it did not have a license to conduct wholesale tobacco business under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the rules made thereunder. The court relied on the decision in Brij Mohan v. N. V. Vakharia, ILR (1965) 15 Raj 496 = (AIR 1965 Raj 172), which held that a partnership for a business requiring a license cannot be lawfully carried on without a proper license in the name of the partnership.
Issues: 1. Whether the tobacco business was part of the partnership business. 2. Whether the partnership was illegal due to the absence of a license for wholesale tobacco business. 3. Whether a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts could be maintained for an illegal partnership.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 6 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, read with Schedule 1 thereof, and Rule 178(2) and (4) of the rules made thereunder, to hold that wholesale business in the purchase or sale of tobacco could not be carried on except under a license obtained under the Act. 2. The court held that the partnership was illegal as it did not have a license in its name, and that the defendant's license could not be considered as a license in favor of the partnership. 3. The court applied the principle that courts will not enforce claims arising from illegal partnerships and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for dissolution and accounts.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower court, and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit without any order as to costs.
I. N. MODI, J.
( 1 ) THIS is a civil regular second appeal by the defendant Mohrilal in a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts, which was dismissed by the trial court but on appeal that decision was reversed and the case was remanded back with a direction that a preliminary decree for the taking of the accounts be passed and the suit be decided according to law. The material facts are these:
( 2 ) THE plaintiff Shri Ballabh and his brother Ram Raghunath carried on business in the name and style of Shri Ballabh Ram Raghunath at Sambhar. The defendant mohrilal also carried on business in the name of Shivnarain Mohrilal in the same town. On Jeth Sudi 6 Smt. 2006 equivalent to the 13th May, 1950, the plaintiffs and the defendant entered into a partnership agreement by which they agreed to carry on the business of sale and purchase of gur, sugar, potatoes, tobacco, etc. It is unnecessary for the purposes of the present appeal to set out all the conditions agreed to between the parties at the time of the agreement, and it should suffice to mention that the partnership business was to consist of the sale and purchase of tobacco among other articles referred to above and that such business shall be conducted in the name of the partnership which was agreed to be styled as Ramavatar Company. The agreement of partnership is Ex. 1. It may be pointed out at this place that it seems to have been agreed between the parties that the work of sale and purchase of the various commodities was to be conducted by the defendants and that they would maintain the day to day accounts in a Kachhi Rokar from which the same will be entered every evening in a Pacci Rokar to be maintained by the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs as they held no licence for doing wholesale business in the sale and purchase of tobacco, the business in that commodity was carried on by the defendant under a licence dated the 16th February, 1951, which he held for the purpose under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and further that the plaintiffs were content to leave this business to be done by the defendant as the latter held a licence in his own name and such business could not be done unless one was a licence holder for the same. It is admitted by the plaintiffs that the partnership account between the parties with reference to all other articles had been settled except in the case of tobacco account. They called upon the defendant to render it to them but without any purpose, and, therefore, they have been compelled to file the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for the dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts in respect of the tobacco business.
( 3 ) DEFENDANT admitted that he had entered into partnership with the plaintiffs by means of the agreement Ex. 1 but pleaded that inasmuch as the partnership did not have or take any licence for dealing in the wholesale sale and purchase of tobacco, business in that commodity was not carried on in partnership but belonged to him exclusively. He raised some other pleas also but with those we are not concerned for the purpose of the present appeal.
( 4 ) BOTH the Courts below have held that the tobacco business was part and parcel of the partnership business of the parties. The trial Court came to the conclusion that as the said business had been done by the partnership without a licence in the name of the partnership firm, this was in contravention of the provisions of the central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the rules made thereunder and, consequently, it was unlawful, and, in this view of the matter, dismissed the plaintiffs suit with costs. On appeal the learned District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, reversed that decision and remanded the suit with a direction that a preliminary decree be passed for rendition of accounts and for further proceedings according to law. The learned judge felt persuaded to come to that conclusion as in his opinion the tobacco business
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.