Personal licence business arrangements may be void where partnership use defeats the statutory licensing scheme and public policy.

A partnership formed to conduct a licensed cloth business in the name of only one partner was treated as illegal because the licence was a personal privilege and the control order allowed business only by the named licensee. Even without an express prohibition on transfer, the statutory scheme was read as excluding an arrangement that effectively shared or diverted the licence rights, making the partnership void under Section 23 of the Contract Act. A suit for dissolution and accounts was also held not maintainable, because a court will not enforce rights arising from an unlawful partnership or aid recovery connected with business carried on in violation of licensing restrictions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a partnership formed to carry on business under a licence issued in the name of only one partner was void under the relevant control order and the Contract Act; (ii) whether a suit for dissolution and accounts of such a partnership was maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether a partnership formed to carry on business under a licence issued in the name of only one partner was void under the relevant control order and the Contract Act.

Analysis: The licence granted under the Madras Cloth (Dealers) Control Order, 1944 was a personal privilege and authorised business by the licensee alone. Clause 4 required every dealer to carry on business only under and in accordance with a licence, and the scheme of the Order showed that only specifically licensed persons could lawfully deal in cloth. Though the Order did not contain an express clause like the Madras Rationing Order prohibiting transfer of the licence, the Court held that a partnership using the licence in substance amounted to an impermissible transfer of rights and an evasion of the statutory scheme. The absence of an express prohibition did not save the arrangement, because the prohibition could be implied from the structure and object of the Order, which was not merely fiscal but also based on public policy.

Conclusion: The partnership was void and illegal under Section 23 of the Contract Act.

Issue (ii): Whether a suit for dissolution and accounts of such a partnership was maintainable.

Analysis: Once the partnership was found to be illegal and formed for an unlawful object, the Court would not lend its aid to enforce rights arising out of it. The controlling principle, drawn from the relevant authorities, was that no suit for accounts of an illegal partnership could be maintained where the business itself was carried on in contravention of the statutory restrictions governing the licence.

Conclusion: The suit was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The second appeal failed because the underlying partnership was unlawful and incapable of enforcement in a civil court.

Ratio Decidendi: A partnership entered into for carrying on a licensed business by persons other than the named licensee is illegal where the statutory scheme implies that the licence is personal and that only specifically licensed persons may conduct the business, even if the statute does not expressly prohibit transfer or partnership.

---