BRIJ LAL Vs. SHRI RAJESHWAR PARSHAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJESHWAR Parshad, respondent No. 1, Bachan Singh, respondent No. 3 and Brij Lal, petitioner, obtained a license for the sale of country liquor at Jagadhri for one year from 1st of April, 1966 to 31st March, 1967. For the same year, Ishar Singh, respondent No. 2, got a license for the sale of English wine at Jagadhri On 7th June, 1966 all these persons entered into an agreement of partnership by which they agreed to run the business of the sale of the country liquor and English wine. The deed mentioned the shares of the respective partners as well as the amounts which they had to invest, On 10th of May, 1967, Rajeshwar Parshad filed a suit for dissolution of the partnership and for rendition of accounts. It was contested only by brij Lal, Inter alia, on the ground that the said agreement had been executed in contravention of the conditions of the license and it was against the provisions of the Punjab Excise Act (hereinafter called the Act). That being so, it was illegal and against public policy. It could not be enforced in a Court of law and no suit was maintainable on it; basis. The following preliminary issue, was framed in the case:

(2.) THIS issue was decided against Brij Lil on 13th December, 1967 and against this order, the present revision petition has been filed by him.

(3.) ACCORDING to Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void. The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless it is forbidden by law or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law or the court ragards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy. In the present case, it is admitted that the license to sell the country liquor was in the name of Rajeshwar Parshad, Bachan Singh and Brij Lal, while the other license for the sale of English wine hid been granted to Ishar Singh alone. Under rule 4 of the Punjab Liquor License Rules, 1956, a license could be granted to a partnership or a 6 p.m. It is conceded that the partnership, which was formed in the instant case had not been granted any license. Under the license granted to Ishar Singh, he alone could sell the English wine and he could not allow any other person to conduct the sales on his behalf, unless the name of such person had been previously submitted to the Collector for approval and endorsed by him on the license. Under clause 10 of the agreement of partnership in the present case, Brij Lal had been authorised to look to the sales on both the shops. It was he who had to collect the daily cash from these shops and was responsible for its safe custody and correct accounting. This he could not do, unless the previous permission of he Collector had been obtained in that behalf According to this agreement, Ishar Singh, who had got the license for the sale of English wine, had become a partner in the license given to the other three for the sale of country liquor. By virtue of this partnership, he could conduct the sales of country liquor, which he was not authorised to do under the rules, unless his name was approved by the Collector before hand. Under this agreement all the four persons had become the licenses for the sale of country liquor and foreign liquor. This was clearly against the provisions of the Act and the rules. The object of this agreement was therefore, to defeat the provisions of law. This object would also be against public policy,, which was that only the licensees should be permitted to sell liquor. Such an agreement of partnership was, therefore clearly illegal, void and unenforceable is law.