[1] Section 22 of the Abkari Act 1 of 1886 imposes a duty on the lessee or assignee, that is, on the defendant, not the plaintiff in this case; but Clause 21 of the plaintiff s license which is issued under Section 24, Clause (e) of the Act, imposes the duty on the plaintiff also as grantee of Government to obtain the Collector s license for his lessee, the defendant.
[2] Thus there was a legal duty on the part of both the plaintiff and the defendant to obtain the Collector s permission to the sub-letting. They failed to do so, and the contract entered into between them that defendant should sell arrack was illegal, and the plaintiff therefore cannot sue on it.
[3] We dismiss the second appeal with costs.
Are you looking for a
legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a
legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and
Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.
Pakuru Dasu v. Bheemudu
Pakuru Dasu v. Bheemudu
(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
Second Appeal No. 134 Of 1901 | 01-09-1902
Advocate List
Bench
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BENSON
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOORE
Eq Citations
- (1903) ILR 26 MAD 430
- LQ/MadHC/1902/89
Head Note
Contract and Specific Relief — Specific Relief — Sub-letting — Held, there was a legal duty on the part of both plaintiff and defendant to obtain Collector's permission to sub-letting — Abkari Act, 1886, Ss. 22 and 24(e) and Cl. 21 IP Act, 1908, S. 11
