TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1961 (1) TMI 87
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the kist to the Government and the rent of the building, in which the tavern was housed. As the agreement is important, we would extract below its relevant parts. " X X X (1) The Foreign Liquor Tavern, Ernakulam, auctioned for the year 1124, by Mr, Krishna Menon, for Rs. 9100/-, and situated in Mr. Kopramban's buildings, Jews Street, Ernakulam, is to be, from this date, conducted by Mr. Lakshmana Iyer. (2) The license standing in the name of the former is to be transferred to the name of the latter. (3) Mr. M. Krishna Menon is to be paid rupees eleven thousand, six hundred and fifty-five, annas thirteen and pies two (Rs. 11,655-13-2) by Messrs. L. Narayana Iyer, N. Lakshmana Iyer, N, Neelakanta Iyer and N. Kalyana Rama Iyer, in daily instalments equivalent to half the amount of the day's total sales in the tavern, and the whole amount of Rs. 11,655-13-2 to, be completely paid by the end of Medom 1124. X X X (5) All the four persons, viz., Mr, L. Narayana Iyer, N. Lakshmana Iyer, N. Neelakanta Iyer and N, Kalyana Rama Iyer, ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dant. The last mentioned person pleaded that be was only a paid servant under the appellant, the accounts of the business was still not settled and his letter referred to in the plaint was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. 4. The trial court framed 11 issues; but the parties agreed to the first issue in the case being decided early, which was done after the appellant had been examined. That issue is whether the agreement was illegal for the grounds mentioned in the defence of the suit and the suit was not maintainable; and the trial court has held that the contract transferring the plaintiff's interests in the Foreign Liquor Tavern being without the Commissioner's sanction, was illegal and void, and the suit based on the same was not maintainable. The issue having been thus decided, in favour of the defendants, the suit was dismissed. There against, the appeal before us has been filed, and because the question of law in another case similar to the one arising in the appeal had been already referred to a Full Bench, this appeal was also referred. The case, in which the aforesaid point had: been raised, has been earlier disposed of on other grounds, with the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....endant on condition of the latter paying an annual profit of Rs. 26 as well as the monthly rent to the owners of the godown in which the shop was situated. It was held that the intention of the Act, under which the licence was given, was than the one, who had the licence shall keep the management and control of the shop, so that a contract allowing another the benefit of the licence of the shop was contrary to the policy of the law, was illegal, and could not be enforced. The next case Boistub Churn Naun v. Wooma Churn Sen ILR 16 Cal 436 where the plaintiff had; not taken out a licence for the sale of fermented liquors under Bengal Act VII of 1878, had sold certain quantity to the defendant, and has sued for the price. It was held that the Act was not framed for the protection of the revenue alone, but embraced other important objects of public policy, the agreement entered into was void, and the money under it could not be recovered. The same view has been taken in Marudamuthu Filial v. Rangasami Moopan SLR 24 Mad. 401 where the plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the defendant that they should be partners in the business of vending arrack and toddy, the plaintiff havi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been given to a third person on the latter agreeing to ray the former the advance license tee etc., amounted to transfer, was void, being contrary to Rule, 143 framed under Section 89, and punishable as a crime under Section 57. It was further held that Section 65 of the Contract Act would be of no avail to the liquor contractor, because both the parties to the contract were in pan delicto in procuring the illegality, and hence the plaintiff would not be entitled to claim refund of the advance licence fee and price of the stock. Reference may also be made to Fakirohand v. Bansilal AIR 1955 Hyd 28 where provisions in the Hyderabad Abkari Act and the Rules framed thereunder had restricted transfer of business of liquor shops or entering into a partnership without the previous permission of the Government, and these provisions were held, not merely for the protection of the State revenue but to be in the interests of the general public, so that the failure to observe them could not be condoned, and contracts made in contravention of these provisions were invalid. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that courts do not decree money claimed as due under agreem....