9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the partnership under the Central Excises and Salt Act. 2. Whether the plaintiff can claim relief based on the defendants' admission of an agency relationship. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Partnership under the Central Excises and Salt Act The primary issue in this case was whether the partnership formed between the plaintiff and the defendants for trading in tobacco was legal under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the rules framed thereunder. The plaintiff claimed that a partnership was formed in 1945, with him providing the necessary finance and the defendants managing the day-to-day operations. The partnership was allegedly dissolved by a notice from the plaintiff on 18-9-1950, and the suit was filed for the taking of accounts of this dissolved partnership. The defendants argued that there was no partnership and, alternatively, that any such partnership would be illegal under the Central Excises and Salt Act, as the plaintiff held a license under this Act which did not permit such a partnership without proper amendments to the license. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, particularly Sections 6, 7, 8, and 9, and Rule 178 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Section 6 mandates that no person shall engage in the wholesale trade of excisable goods without a license. Rule 178 specifies that a license is personal to the grantee and cannot be transferred or shared without notifying the authorities and amending the license accordingly. Violation of these provisions attracts penalties under Section 9. The court concluded that the formation of a partnership without reporting it to the authorities and amending the license within 30 days constituted a contravention of the Act and rules. This made the partnership illegal, as both the plaintiff and the defendants would be engaging in the tobacco trade without proper authorization, subjecting them to penalties. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the Act's primary purpose was fiscal and that penalties should not render the partnership illegal. The court emphasized that the statutory provisions clearly prohibited such partnerships without compliance with the specified conditions, making any such partnership void and unenforceable. 2. Whether the Plaintiff Can Claim Relief Based on the Defendants' Admission of an Agency Relationship The plaintiff also argued that, based on the defendants' written statement admitting an agency relationship, the court should have accepted this admission and passed a decree for the taking of accounts. The defendants had stated that they were merely agents working under the plaintiff's direction and control. The court held that the plaintiff could not abandon his original case of a partnership and adopt the defendants' version to claim relief. The court cited the principle that a plaintiff cannot be allowed to shift his case to align with the defendant's version if it contradicts his initial allegations. The court referred to the decision in Ramdayal v. Jummenjoy Coondoo, ILR 14 Cal 791, which established that a plaintiff cannot claim relief based on the defendant's statement of facts if it contradicts his own. The court concluded that since the plaintiff's entire case was based on the existence of a partnership, and this partnership was found to be illegal, the plaintiff could not be granted any relief. The suit was correctly dismissed by the lower court. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the lower court's decision that the partnership was illegal under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and that the plaintiff could not claim relief based on the defendants' admission of an agency relationship.
|
