A.M.Bhattacharjee, J. - (1.) The questions involved in this Second Appeal are no longer res integra, but are covered by binding precedents and governing ourselves by them, as we must, we cannot but dismiss the appeal, which we hereby do.
(2.) Our Law Reports abound in cases dealing with the question as to whether a business, which under the law, can be carried on only under and in accordance with a statutory licence or permit, but is carried on by the holder of the licence or permit in co-partnership with others not having any such licence or permit, is illegal as being forbidden by law or defeating the provisions of the law or as against public policy. As usual, our Courts have spoken in different voices on different occasions and the views propounded therein may sometimes defy reconciliation.
(3.) But confining ourselves to the decision of the Privy Council in Gordhandas v. Champsey (AIR 1921 Privy Council 137) affirming the decision of the Bombay High Court in Chammy v. Gordhandas (AIR 1917 Bom 250), the decision of this Court in Mafizuddin Khan v. Habibuddin Sheikh (AIR 1957 Calcutta 336) and the two decisions of the Supreme Court in Umacharan v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1959-37 Income Tax Reporter 271) and in K. M. Viswanatha Pillai v. K. M. Sammugham Pillai (AIR 1969 Supreme Court 493), all binding on us, the position appears to be that if the holder of licence or permit retains the control of the business and there is nothing to show that the licence/permit has in any way been transferred to the partners and the latter only share the profits or losses of the business in consideration of their pecuniary contribution to the partnership fund, such a partnership, unless expressly forbidden by any relevant statute, is not illegal on any of the grounds mentioned in section 23 of the Contract Act.;