GORLA SATYANARAYANA Vs. GANGULA VENKATESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this case was the defendant in the suit and the respondent was plaintiff. In order to avoid any confusion the parties are referred to as plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff filed a suit for dissolution and rendition of accounts of a firm. The firm was sought to be dissolved with effect from 27-1-1983. The case of the plaintiff was that he along with the defendant established a Rice and Flour mill at Muthyalapalli village and a partnership was created by virtue of written agreement on 8-10-1982. A piece of land measuring 15 cents was purchased by the defendant in his name under a registered sale deed. The defendant also secured 25 Horse power electric motor and 25 H.P. Oil engine and the mill was established by the name of Sri Laxmi Gnaneswara Rice and Flour mill. The plaintiff had to contribute Rs. 69,300/- being 30% of the total investment and defendant had to contribute Rs. 1,76,0007- being 70% share. The plaintiff contributed an amount of Rs. 55,000.00 the balance of Rs. 14,300.00 was due to be paid by the plaintiff. Profits and losses had to be shared in the ratio of their investment. Partnership was at will. The defendant obtained approval and permission from the Panchayat and also licence from the Joint Collector, West Godavari for running the mill in his name. As per the terms of the agreement the defendant has to manage the mill. The plaintiff belongs to a different village. Therefore he executed a Power of Attorney in favour of one T. Rangarao so that he could look after his interests in the business. The defendant failed to render accounts properly and started taking away the profits. Therefore the Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff issued a registered notice to the defendant dissolving the firm with effect from the date of notice and called upon the defendant to render accounts. The defendant failed and a suit was filed, the defendant resisted the suit on various grounds. The principal ground was that the agreement dated 8-10-82 was not true and was a forged document. The defendant also claimed that the Rice mill was sole proprietary concern. He stated that plaintiff was closely related to him and the plaintiff had been asked by the defendant to manage the mill in the month of September, 1982. The defendant further stated that he took some land on lease from one Tirumani Mutyalu for storing the husk in October, 1982. When the defendant was sick the plaintiff was managing the mill. The plaintiff informed the defendant that said Mutyalu was insisting for a written document with respect to lease and on this representation he obtained signatures of the defendant on blank papers. The defendant also denied that the plaintiff had contributed Rs. 55,0007- towards the mill. Following issues were framed by the trial Court.

(2.) In the Memorandum of the Letters Patent Appeal and also during the oral arguments following arguments were raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant relies on a judgment of Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Parihar vs. M.P.S.R.T.C. This judgment is altogether in different circumstances where the Supreme Court was interpreting provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. A route had been given to State Road Transport Corporation, on a premium this route was allowed to be run by a private transporter. The Supreme Court found that, allowing a private person to run his own business of transport was contrary to various provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. The Supreme Court found that under Section 61 of the Act no permit could be transferred and the permit could only be transferred on the death of a holder to his legal successor. It also found that under Section 42 of the Act no vehicle could be permitted to ply save in accordance with the conditions of the permit. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the action was not justified. Running of a vehicle under M.V Act by transfer of a permit by its holder to another person was specifically prohibited, therefore the Supreme Court held that the Corporation was not authorised to permit another person to run his vehicle on his own under a permit issued to the Corporation by paying some premium to the Corporation. The present case is not at all coming within the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the .said judgment. Another judgment to which reference has been made is a judgment by a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court reported in Gobardhan Chakraborthy vs. Abani Mohan. The judgment of the Calcutta High Court was altogether in different circumstances. On the other hand there is a judgment of Supreme Court reported in Ved Gupta vs. M/s. Apsara Theatres. Before it is stated as to what law was laid down by the Supreme Court certain facts of the case are necessary to be mentioned. There was a partnership with respect to running of a cinema theatre. There were disputes between the partners. One of the partners was a licensee under the Cinematograph Act. The other partner tried to get the licence renewed in the name of the partnership which was rejected by the competent authority and the appellate authority. The High Court also rejected their plea and Supreme Court dismissed the S.L.P. Thereafter, it appears that the persons who were not licence holders but were partners of the firm were running the business of cinema. They filed a suit against the licensee and got an injunction order against him. He approached the licensing authority informing him that he has liabilities under the Cinematograph Act under the licence but since he is not being allowed to run the cinema therefore he should not be held responsible for any omissions and commissions and that the persons who are running cinema should be restrained from running the cinema. An order was passed by the competent authority to the following effect: