9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the partnership deed dated 5-9-1949. 2. Plaintiff's entitlement to relief based on the illegality of his own deed. 3. Defendants' entitlement to the theatre premises, fittings, and furniture. 4. Defendants' entitlement to reimbursement of monies paid with interest. 5. Reliefs to which the parties are entitled. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Partnership Deed: The primary issue was whether the partnership deed dated 5-9-1949 was illegal and void 'ab initio'. The partnership involved the operation of a cinema business, which required a license. Clause 7 of the license prohibited assignment, subletting, or transfer without permission. The court referenced the Full Bench decision in AIR1950Mad444, which held that a partnership formed for a business requiring a license, obtained in the name of one partner, was void 'ab initio'. The court concluded that the partnership was illegal concerning the business covered by the license, thus rendering it void. 2. Plaintiff's Entitlement to Relief: The court considered whether the plaintiff was entitled to any relief given the illegality of the partnership. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the partnership was void and an injunction against the defendants. The court noted that granting such relief was discretionary and found that the plaintiff acted fraudulently by attempting to use the Full Bench decision to back out of the partnership after inducing the defendants to invest significant sums. Consequently, the court determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief sought due to his fraudulent conduct. 3. Defendants' Entitlement to Theatre Premises and Fittings: The court examined whether the defendants were entitled to rights in the theatre premises, fittings, and furniture. It was argued that the partnership involved multiple aspects, including the lease, furniture, and equipment, and was valid concerning these matters. However, the court held that these assets were solely for the business of exhibiting films, which was illegal. The court concluded that the defendants were co-owners of these assets but not partners, as the business itself was illegal. 4. Defendants' Entitlement to Reimbursement: The court addressed whether the defendants were entitled to reimbursement of the monies paid with interest. It was determined that if the plaintiff were to be granted a declaration, it must be conditional upon repaying the defendants all amounts received for the partnership. The court remitted the matter to the Official Referee to ascertain the exact amounts due, including interest at six percent per annum from the date of the advances. Payments made by the receiver during the pendency of the action would reduce the amounts payable. 5. Reliefs to Which the Parties are Entitled: The court ultimately decided that the partnership was illegal and void 'ab initio'. The plaintiff was directed to repay the defendants all amounts advanced by them, with interest, before being granted a declaration that the partnership was void. The defendants were granted a charge on the partnership assets for the amounts found payable to them. The court set aside the lower court's decree dismissing the suit and passed a preliminary decree referring the matter to the Official Referee for determining the amounts due. The costs of both parties would be provided for in the final decree. Conclusion: The court concluded that the partnership was illegal and void due to the prohibition in Clause 7 of the license. The plaintiff was not entitled to relief due to his fraudulent conduct, but the defendants were entitled to reimbursement of their investments with interest. The matter was referred to the Official Referee to ascertain the exact amounts due, and the defendants were granted a charge on the partnership assets. The costs of both parties were to be addressed in the final decree.
|
