S M KANNIAPPA NADAR Vs. K K KARUPPIAH NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the appellant for the dissolution of a partnership known as Sarada Match Works at ramalingpuram in Ramnathpuram Dt for taking of accounts and payment of what is found due to him by the respondent; alternatively to direct the latter to pay the former a sum of Rs. 7630-11-0 with subsequent interest. The facts which give rise to the claim are these : The respondent who had obtained a licence under the provisions of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, was carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of safety matches under the name Sarada Match Works, ramalingapuram. On 11-7-1955, the respondent admitted the appellant as a partner in the business which both agreed to run for a minimum period of six years. The agreement which was reduced to writing on 16-7-1955, expressly stipulated that the partners were to obtain an amendment of the existing licence in favour of one of them in their joint names and that the appellant should contribute capital in a sum of Rs. 10,000. The terms of the agreement relevant to the present controversy are contained in clauses 2 and 3 thereto. It will be useful to set them out here verbatim :

(2.) THE firm was duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The appellant claims to have advanced on various dates a sum of Rs. 10,000 to the respondent in pursuance of the articles of the partnership. It also appears that the appellant and his son were put in charge of a section of the business at a place called ellairampannai. By the rules framed under the Central Excise Act a licencee who admits a partners in his business should intimate the fact to the licencing authority within 30 days thereof; the respondent who took upon himself that obligation failed to do so. The business continued as before till the parties fell out in december 1955, when the respondent is said to have expelled the appellant from the business. The latter, therefore, instituted the suit out of which the appeal arises for the reliefs aforesaid. In a very verbose and unintelligible written statement, the respondent denied the appellant's claim. The principal points for determination in the case were two, namely,

(3.) BEFORE the lower appellate Court the appellant based his claim for accounts in two ways : (1) that the partnership was not illegal, in that one of the parties had a licence and business could be done under it, (2) further as under that rule the parties had 30 days time to intimate the authorities about the formation of the partnership, the firm should be considered to be legally constituted for that period of 30 days.