9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (7) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Dhuri Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Society, hereinafter called the society. It is registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act and is a corporate body. Defendant 2 is a partnership firm known as Balak Ram Budh Ram (referred to hereinafter as the firm) of which defendant-appellant Budh Ram is the proprietor. Defendant-respondent 4 is only pro forma and he was connected with the plaintiff society but did not join in the suit. On 30th September, 1957, a partnership deed, Exhibit P. 1 was executed between the society acting through Pritam Singh, defendant-respondent 4, and the firm through its proprietor Budh Ram, defendant-appellant. The firm was holding a license under Cotton Control Order, 1955, promulgated by the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntrol Order or that it was confined only to the ginning of cotton. One of the material issues framed in the case, therefore, was whether the partnership between the parties was only for ginning purposes. The trial Court decided this issue against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. We are not referring to the other issues as findings thereon are not material for the purposes of the present appeal. The Court of first appeal concurred with the finding of the trial Court, and held that the business activity of the partnership was not restricted to ginning purposes only and that it was a partnership between the firm and the society for indulging in purchase and sale of cotton as well. The lower appellate Court took the view that since the bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c policy. The learned Judge also held that even if it be assumed that the partnership agreement was void as being opposed to public policy, the parties to the agreement were not in pari delicto. Relying on the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sita Ram v. Radha Bai: AIR 1968 SC 534, it was held that in the circumstances of the present case, the Court should not shirk from helping the plaintiff-appellant in having the accounts settled with the defendant-respondents. The finding of the lower appellate Court that the accounts had been settled was held to be not based on any evidence and, therefore, reversed. In the result, the appeal was allowed and the case remanded to the trial Court with a direction to proceed with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o V. Basavayya v. N. Kottayya decision wherein is based on the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in an unreported judgment in Govinda Rao v. Nathmal, Civil Appeal No. 30 of 1960 decided on 11-4-1962 (SC). The plaintiff there had filed a suit for accounts of a dissolved firm. The defendants challenged the partnership on the ground that it contravened the Central Provinces and Berar Food Grains Control Order (1945) and was, therefore, illegal. The relevant provisions of this Food Grains Control Order were almost in similarity to those of the Cotton Control Order. Every dealer who dealt in foodgrains was required to take a license and the word "dealer" includes any group or association of persons like a firm or par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable to a penalty under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, under which the Cotton Control Order is issued. There is, therefore a definite prohibition from carrying on the business covered by a license except by the licensee himself. No doubt, there is no definition of a dealer given in the Cotton Control Order, the like of which we find in the Central Provinces and Berar Food Grains Control Order, but that will not make any difference. The word "person" as defined in the General Clauses Act includes any company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not and this definition is wide enough to include a partnership firm. A partnership is certainly an association of individuals for certain purposes though n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransfer of license or an express provision that formation of partnership or transfer of license is illegal, is immaterial when such a prohibition, formation or transfer can be implied from the Order." We are in the respectful agreement with these observations and are of the considered view that the prohibition of formation of partnership by the license is in the very nature of things implied when a license is issued under a Control Order in the name of a particular person. The license is a personal privilege the benefit whereof cannot be extended to others by entering into partnership with them when they do not hold any license. Any such action on the part of the licensee will be circumventing the provisions of the Control Order unles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
