9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of a partnership to carry on business in wagering contracts. 2. Applicability of Section 69(1) of the Partnership Act. 3. Applicability of Section 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Whether the partnership was between two joint families or two managers. 5. Whether the object of the partnership was unlawful under Section 23 of the Contract Act. 6. Whether the partnership was opposed to public policy. 7. Whether the partnership was immoral. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of a Partnership to Carry on Business in Wagering Contracts: The High Court held that the partnership was valid as it was between the two managers of the joint families and not the families themselves. The object of the partnership was to deal in differences, which, although void under Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act as wagers, was not unlawful under Section 23 of the said Act. The Supreme Court confirmed that a wagering contract is void but not illegal, and thus a partnership to carry on such business is not unlawful. 2. Applicability of Section 69(1) of the Partnership Act: The High Court found that the partnership was dissolved after the season was over, and therefore, the suit for accounts of the dissolved firm was not hit by the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of Section 69 of the Partnership Act. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, stating that Section 42 of the Partnership Act applies, which states that a firm is dissolved by the completion of its undertaking. 3. Applicability of Section 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure: The learned Subordinate Judge found that the claim in respect of the transactions with Mulchand was not barred under Section 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the cause of action did not arise at the time the earlier suit was filed. The Supreme Court did not find any reason to overturn this finding. 4. Whether the Partnership was Between Two Joint Families or Two Managers: The High Court held that the partnership was between the two managers of the joint families and not the families themselves. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, stating that the partnership was only in respect of forward contracts with two specified individuals and for a particular season. 5. Whether the Object of the Partnership was Unlawful Under Section 23 of the Contract Act: The Supreme Court analyzed Section 23 of the Contract Act, which states that the object of an agreement is unlawful if it is forbidden by law, immoral, or opposed to public policy. The Court concluded that a wagering contract is void but not illegal and therefore does not fall under the ambit of Section 23. Consequently, the partnership was not unlawful. 6. Whether the Partnership was Opposed to Public Policy: The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of public policy is an illusive concept and should only be invoked in clear and incontestable cases of harm to the public. The Court found that neither the common law of England nor the Indian law recognized any principle of public policy declaring wagering contracts illegal. Therefore, the partnership was not opposed to public policy. 7. Whether the Partnership was Immoral: The Supreme Court confined the concept of immorality under Section 23 of the Contract Act to sexual immorality, as established by precedents. The Court found no basis to extend this concept to wagering contracts. Consequently, the partnership was not considered immoral. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the partnership to carry on business in wagering contracts was not unlawful, opposed to public policy, or immoral under the relevant provisions of the Indian Contract Act, the Partnership Act, and the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
