HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The plaintiff who is the appellant is a wholesale dealer in tobacco in Badagara having obtained the necessary licence for the purpose. The suit is for recovery of the amount due to him towards the price of tobacco supplied to the trade which according to the plaintiff was jointly conducted by defendants 1 to 3.
The first defendant denied having any connection in the trade of defendants 2 and 3 and further denied having purchased tobacco from the plaintiff.
(2.) The Trial Court decreed the suit against defendants 1 to 3. But in the appeal filed by the first defendant, the learned Subordinate Judge vacated the decree against the 1st defendant and allowed the appeal. The Second Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the lower appellate court.
(3.) The learned Appellate Judge assumed for the purpose of his discussion that defendants 2 and 3 were having a partnership trade, that they had obtained licence in their names for purchasing tobacco, that the 1st defendant was subsequently admitted into the partnership, and since no licence was taken in the name of the 1st defendant as well under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, (1 of 1944), the transaction of the plaintiff with the first defendant is illegal and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to get a decree against the first defendant.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.