HC suspends liquor licence over fight between partners

High Court rejects renewal licence application of partners who filed for dissolution of partnership

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: Afight among partners of a firm has led to the licence of the liquor trade they were running to be kept in abeyance.

The High Court, which heard a plea by one of the partners for renewal of the licence, said, “In view of the fact that suit for dissolution of the firm has been filed, at the most, after the dissolution takes place, it would have to be adjudicated by the Court as to in whose favour the licence has to be transferred or to whose share it would fall. Until then, there would be no purpose in continuing the said licence or its renewal.” Nagalinga, from Nagasettyhalli, Bengaluru, approached the HC with a petition. He and YB Ramachandra were partners in Marthanda Enterprises running the business of Marthanda Wines.

Misunderstanding between the two led to disputes and various proceedings between them. Ramachandra’s request for renewal of the licence was approved by the authorities and this was challenged by Nagalinga in the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT).

The KAT rejected his petition. He challenged this in the HC which was heard by Justice Suraj Govindaraj. Since Ramachandra himself had filed for dissolution of the partnership, the HC he could not have sought for renewal of the licence in the name of Marthanda Enterprises. “I am of the considered opinion that when a suit for dissolution filed by the very same applicant is pending, no application can be filed by such a partner for renewal,” the HC said.

“There would be no purpose that could be served by continuance of the firm by one of the partners when the suit for dissolution is pending. The matter would have been different if the petitioner (Nagalinga) had filed a suit for dissolution of the firm and respondent No 3 (Ramachandra) has sought for renewal of the licence. That is to say a persona other than the plaintiff in a suit for dissolution was to seek renewal of the licence,” the HC said. There was a small respite for Ramachandra though.

The advocate for YB Ramachandra told the court that “there were stocks at the shop where the business is being carried on and he may be granted four weeks’ time to make sale of the said stock.” The court allowed this request. “He is so permitted. It is made clear that no fresh stock shall be ordered by respondent from any of the manufacturer, wholesalers, stockists and distributors or otherwise and it is only the stock as on today that shall be sold.”