KHODARAM SHERIAR IRANI Vs. DAMODAR SHRIPAL BAGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The six appellants before me are the plaintiffs in S.C. Suit No. 6318 of 1283 pending in the City Civil Court at Bombay. They will hereinafter be referred to as "the plaintiffs". Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are defendants Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in the said suit and they will be described accordingly in this judgment. A few facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal from order may be stated. There was at the relevant time in the name of the first defendant a licence issued under the Bombay Prohibition Act to sell country liquor. That licence was issued in the year 1975. The second defendant is the tenant of the premises in which defendant No. 1 carried on the business of selling the country liquor. Some time in the year 1976, the plaintiffs or some of them, at any rate, entered into an agreement with defendants Nos. 1 and 2 under which, it is stated, the plaintiffs were given the benefit of the liquor licence which was standing in the name of the first defendant.

(2.) Disputes arose between the parties and the first defendant refused to renew the licence standing in his name. This prompted the plaintiffs to file a suit, being Suit No. 6318 of 1983 in the Bombay City Civil Court praying among other things for a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from preventing the plaintiffs or the partnership firm from enjoying the benefits of the country liquor licence issued by the Collector of Bombay. The prayer also included the relief of restraining the first defendant from transferring the said liquor licence to the name of any other person or to any other premises other than the one where the partnership was allegedly carrying on the business.

(3.) In the suit, the plaintiffs took out a Notice of Motion Bearing No. 5667 of 1983 for interim injunctions in the terms of the prayers included in the plaint. The Notice of Motion came to be dismissed by the learned trial Judge by his judgment and order dated 17th December, 1984. Against that order the plaintiffs have preferred Appeal No. 78 of 1985. The plaintiffs had also applied in the Court below for the appointment of the Receiver by a Notice of Motion bearing No. 1859 of 1984. The prayer for Receiver was made on the ground that the licence which had been obtained in the name of the first defendant should be utilised for the benefit of the partnership firm and that the Receiver himself should also apply for the renewal of the licence, thus ensuring the continued flow of the benefits of the licence which was admittedly standing in the name of the first defendant. The learned trial Judge by his judgment and order dated 1st August, 1984 dismissed this Notice of Motion also that order is the subject-matter of challenge in Appeal No. 635 of 1984 from order.