Marudamuthu Pillai vs Rangasami Mooppan and Another

According to the plaintiff he entered into an agreement with the defendant that they should be partners in the business of vending arrack and

toddy, the plaintiff having a. license for toddy, and the defendant having a license for arrack. At the time this contract was entered into, it was a rule

of the Government under the Abkari Act that no person having a toddy license should be interested in an arrack business and vice versa. So that

the contract between the parties was clearly in contravention of that rule. Such a rule was not made merely for the protection of the revenue, but

also to regulate the liquor traffic in the interest of the public see Boistub Churn Naun v. Wooma Churn Sen ILR 16 Calc. 436. The contract was

therefore void ab initio as being opposed to public policy.

Apart from this, we should hold that the contract was invalid also on the ground that the license in each case was to be obtained by only one of

the partners. The provisions of the Abkari Act, as a whole, show clearly that every person carrying on abkari business as a principal must be

licensed under the Act. The reason is obvious that, unless he were licensed, there could be no control over him. To hold that a person who has not

got a license could still be partner with one who has a license and as such partner carry on the business with or without the other would enable the

unlicensed partner to evade the liabilities intended by the law to he cast on persons carrying on abkari business.

The second appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs of the first respondent.