Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a partnership entered into by a tobacco licence-holder without reporting it and obtaining amendment of the licence under the excise rules was illegal and whether a suit for accounts based on such partnership was maintainable.
Analysis: The licensing scheme under the excise statute required a valid licence for tobacco trade, made the licence personal to the grantee, and, by the relevant rule, required notice to the licensing authority and amendment of the licence when a partnership was formed. Breach of the rule attracted the statutory penalty. On that construction, a partnership entered into in violation of those conditions was a prohibited arrangement, and the defendants' participation in the business would itself have constituted an offence. The alternative attempt to treat the defendants as agents could not assist the plaintiff, because he had sued only on the footing of a partnership and could not abandon that case and claim relief on a different factual basis.
Conclusion: The partnership was illegal and unenforceable, and the suit for accounts was not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory licensing regime makes the licence personal, requires disclosure and amendment upon the formation of a partnership, and attaches penalties to breach, the partnership is prohibited by law and no civil action can be maintained on that illegal arrangement.