SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(J&K) 157

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Alok Aradhe, Sanjeev Kumar, JJ.
Dharam Chand and Others - Appellants
Vs.
Dharam Paul and Others - Respondents
LPAOW No.27 of 2005, MP Nos.2 of 2016, 31 of 2015 c/w LPAOW NO.42 of 2007, MP No.64 of 2007
Decided On : 18-07-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. U.K. Jalali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anuj Sawhney, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Ajay Abrol, Advocate, Mr. N.A. Choudhary, CGSC, Mr. Rohit Kapoor, AAG.

The main legal point established is that the word 'legal successor' in the communications should be given a restricted meaning to safeguard the legitimate interest of the successor-members of the family of the existing manufacturer, and a license is a personal privilege and cannot be made the subject matter of a will.

Headnote:

Arms License - Incorporation of Name - Arms Act, Rules and Notification - Communications dated 16.02.1967 and 27.03.1971

Fact of the Case:

The deceased respondent No.1 claimed to be the legal heir of a deceased partner in an arms license and sought incorporation of his name in the license. The court allowed the writ petition and directed the official respondents to incorporate the name of the deceased respondent No.1 as co-licensee in place of the deceased partner.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the deceased respondent No.1, based on a will and probate, claimed to be the legal successor-in-interest of the deceased partner and was entitled to succeed to all the rights of the testator. The court quashed the order rejecting the claim for incorporation of the name in the arms license.

Issues: The issues involved the eligibility of the deceased respondent No.1 for incorporation/substitution of his name in the arms license, the interpretation of the Communications dated 16.02.1967 and 27.03.1971, and the authority to decide on the incorporation of names in the arms license.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the word 'legal successor' in the communications should be given a restricted meaning to safeguard the legitimate interest of the successor-members of the family of the existing manufacturer. It also emphasized that a license is a personal privilege and cannot be made the subject matter of a will. Additionally, the court stated that the question of eligibility for incorporation/substitution of names in the arms license should be considered by the competent authority under the Arms Act.

Final Decision: The court quashed the order and allowed the appeals.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Aradhe, J.

1. Both these intra Court appeals arise out of a common order dated 24.12.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in OWP No.932/2002, by which the writ petition preferred by the deceased respondent No.1 has been allowed and the official respondents have been directed to incorporate the name of the deceased-respondent No.1 as co-licensee in place of Late Shri Dhirendra Brahmchari in the Arms license of M/S Shiva Gun Factory. In order to appreciate the appellant’s grievance, relevant facts need mention, which are stated infra.

2. A Gun manufacturing license to manufacture one gun at a time was granted in favour of deceased Dharam Chand in the year 1950. On 20.09.1980, he was granted a fresh license as sole proprietor of M/S Shiva Gun Factory, Jammu Tawi to manufacture 3000 ML/BL Guns per annum. On 24.01.1982, name of Late Shri Dhirendra Brahmchari was added as a partner in the said license. However, in the license, no individual share of the each partner was reflected. Late Dhirendra Brahmchari died in a plane crash on 09.06.1994. The deceased respondent No.1 on the basis of a will, which was executed one day prior to the death of the deceased Dhirendra Brahmchari i.e. 08.06.1994 started claiming himself to be the legal heir of deceased Dhirendra Brahmchari and filed a petition for grant of probate/letter of administration on the basis of will, allegedly executed in his favour. The Court thereupon issued notice inviting objections. However, the notice inviting objections was got published in the local Urdu Newspaper “Such” and not in any leading Hindi or English Daily having circulation in Jammu and Delhi where Late Dhirendra Brahmchari had a fixed abode. Since no wide publicity was given to the notice inviting objections, no objections were preferred and letter of administration/probate was issued in favour of respondent No.1.

3. Thereupon the deceased Dharam Chand filed an application before the District Judge, Jammu seeking revocation of the letter of administration dated 02.11.1994 on the ground that no letter of administration could be granted in respect of arms license dated 20.09.1980, which stands in favour of the deceased Dharam Chand and deceased Swami Dhirendra Brahmchari had no transferable interest in it as the arms license is not an Estate. Application preferred by the deceased Dharam Chand was disposed of vide order dated 25.04.1995 with the following observation by the District Judge :-

“So even on the basis of the Will probated by this court the applicant (the respondent No.1 herein, Dharam Paul) as successor of the license holder is entitled only to a consideration by the Licensing Authority. There is no direction by this Court to grant Licence to him. This Court has only probated the Will on the basis of which he can claim title to the property of the testator and no more”.

In the meanwhile, deceased Dharam Paul filed a writ petition (SWP No.848/1994) on 29.11.1994 before this Court in which he had sought a direction to respondent-Union of India to substitute his name in the Arms License dated 20.09.1980 and to allow him to exercise all the powers of licensee for the purpose of managing and owning M/S Shiva Gun Factory and to have physical possession of the premises. The writ petition was filed on the basis of letter of administration dated 02.11.1994 granted by the District Judge, Jammu in favour of Late Dharam Paul. In the aforesaid writ petition, respondent No.1 did not deliberately implead the deceased-appellant, namely Dharam Chand as respondent. However, when the deceased-Dharam Chand came to know about filing of the aforesaid writ petition, he moved an application seeking intervention. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 26.05.1995 with a direction to Union of India to incorporate/substitute the name of respondent No.1, deceased Dharam Paul in the arms license in place of Late Shri Dhirendra Brahmchari. The aforesaid order dated 26.05.1995 was challenged by the deceased

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top