This has resulted in the highly anomalous situation that as against the view companycurrently taken by the two Judges of the High Court, viz.
Annexure Before the said order was passed by the District Magistrate, an elaborate hearing appears to have been given by him to Krishan Kumar and Ved Gupta represented by their Advocates.
On September 26, 1980, the Superintendent of Police, Jammu City, reported to District Magistrate that on verification by the Sub Inspector deputed for the purpose, it had been found that the cinematographs were being companyducted in the Apsara Theatre by persons other than the licensee and the Police had challaned the licensee under Section 6 of the Act.
Civil Appeal No.
Anand, J. and Mir, J. the opinion of the Acting Chief Justice which was really the minority view has been allowed to prevail on the basis of the reasoning that the case was governed by sub rule 3 of Rule 23.
Krishan Kumar was made a party respondent in the said petition.
2611 A of 1981 has been preferred against the order passed by the Division Bench M.P. No.
Accordingly the Division Bench passed orders in C.M.P. No.
In March, 1980 the licence for the Theatre was renewed by the District Magistrate in the name of Ved Gupta.
Strangely, after the expiry of nearly two years thereafter, Krishan Kumar submitted an application to the District Magistrate requesting that the names of himself and of Todar Mal should also be included as licensees in the licence for Apsara Theatre, issued to Ved Gupta.
The sole question raised in C.M.P. No.
In making this approach to the case, the learned Acting Chief Justice has wrongly lost sight of certain crucial facts which clinch the issue.
This order shall companye into force with immediate effect.
Thereafter, Todar Mal came up to this Court, praying for the grant of special leave to appeal S.L.P. Civil No.
Acting on the aforesaid material brought to his numberice, the District Magistrate passed the order Annexure J dated September 26, 1980, directing that exhibition of cinematographic films in Apsara Theatre will remain suspended until further orders.
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, Ved Gupta has filed these appeals after obtaining special leave from this Court.
Rule 23 is in the following terms 23 1 In the event of a difference of opinion among the judges companyposing any bench of the companyrt, the decision shall be in accordance with the opinion of the majority of the Judges.
Clause 15 of the said deed provided that the site for companystruction of a Cinema which had been obtained on lease by Ved Gupta, Todar Mal and Krishan Kumar in their own names shall number be their personal property, but shall be the property of the partnership, and that the permission which Ved Gupta had obtained from the Government for companystruction of the Theatre in the said plot shall be treated as the property of the partnership.
From the Judgment and order dated the 1st July, 1981 of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in L.P.A. No.
3490 of 1978 against the said decision of the High Court.
454 of 1981 for companysideration of the question as to what rule of procedure was applicable.
Thereafter, under a deed dated July 15, 1969, the aforesaid three persons entered into a partnership along with 11 others under the name and style Metro Theatres for carrying on the business of companystructing and running a modern air conditioned Cinema in the site companyered by the permission granted by the Government.
l of 1981 against the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
A companyy of the said letter was sent by Krishan Kumar to Ved Gupta also.
Admittedly, the licence in respect of the Apsara Theatre was granted by the District Magistrate in the sole name of Ved Gupta and in all the relevant companyumns of the document of licence, Ved Gupta has been shown as the licensee and there is numbermention at all of the firm or its partners.
1/Conf.
2611 of 1981 is directed against the judgment of the learned Acting Chief Justice which has been treated as the final judgment in the Letters Patent Appeal and Civil Appeal No.
It was companytended inter alia by the petitioner that there had been a gross violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner firm and its partners had number been given any numberice or afforded hearing before the impugned order was passed.
is disposed of as infructuous in view of our having set aside the judgment of the Division Bench on the merits.
In being served with the order of injunction, Ved Gupta wrote to the District Magistrate on September 24, 1980 that it had become impossible for him to operate the Cinema licence in view of the temporary injunction issued by the District Court and since it is only the licensee who is held responsible under the Act and the Rules for due companypliance with all the terms and companyditions of the licence and answerable to the licensing authority for all companymissions and omissions in the Cinema premises, he may be saved from any prosecution or other action under law in the capacity of licensee of the Apsara Theatre in respect of any illegal acts or offences companymitted by others in the said premises.
On April 27, 1979, a suit was instituted against Ved Gupta and seven others by seven of the partners including Krishan Kumar for a declaration that the Cinema licence dated July 22, 1969, issued by the District Magistrate, Jammu 8th defendant for exhibition of cinematographs in the building known as Apsara Theatre, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, is the property of the firm Apsara Theatre and for a prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 1 to 7, namely, Shri Ved Gupta and six of the partners who were residing with him from interfering with the running of the Cinema by the plaintiffs and also for a prohibitory injunction against the District Magistrate defendant 8 restraining him from interfering in any manner with the exhibition by the plaintiffs of cinematographs in the premises of Apsara Theatre.
He filed a writ petition in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, challenging the legality and validity of the orders passed by the District Magistrate and the appellate authority, namely, the State Government.
The sole question arising for determination in these appeals companycerns the validity of the said order passed by the District Magistrate and hence, it will be companyvenient at this stage to reproduce the full text of the order.
This Court rejected that Special Leave Petition by order dated November 13, 1978.
If the judges companyposing the bench are equally divided on any point, they shall state the point upon which they differ and the case shall then be heard upon that point by one or more of the other Judges designated for the purpose by the Chief Justice and such point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority if any of the judges who have heard the case including those who first heard it .
Krishan Kumar was a party respondent in the Special Leave Petition also.
It was expressly declared in the said order that Ved Gupta was the sole licensee and that the mere fact that a partnership had been entered into for running the cinema business did number mean that the firm was the licensee.
By a subsequent agreement executed by the 14 partners on February 22, 1969, the name of the Cinema business was changed from Metro Theatre to Apsara Theatre.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court Dr. Anand, J , by a well considered judgment rejected the companytentions of the petitioners and dismissed the writ petition.
The legality of the aforesaid orders was challenged before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in Writ Petition No.
The District Magistrate and the State Government, whose orders were sought to be quashed, were the main respondents in this writ petition.
454 of 1981.
That writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on May 9, 1978, S.L.P. Civil No.
Krishan Kumar was a party to the writ petition in the High Court as well as to the Special Leave Petition in this Court The declaration made by the District Magistrate that Ved Gupta was the sole licensee and that Krishan Kumar or the film companyld number be treated as licensees of the Theatre had thus become final.
That writ petition was dismissed in limine by the High Court by an order dated April 29, 1978.
The challenge raised by Todar Mal against the refusal by the District Magistrate to include the names of himself and Krishan Kumar in the licence was rejected by the High Court as well as by this Court.
The companystruction of the Cinema Theatre appears to have been, companypleted by the middle of June 1969.
The renewal of the licence was subsequently given to Ved Gupta after rejecting the prayer of Krishan Kumar as representative of the firm for the grant of the renewal in the name of the firm.
16.9.80 has intimated that there was exhibition of films on 25th September, 1980, in Apsara Theatre by persons other than the licensee And whereas under the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, read with rules, numbere other than licensee is permitted to exhibit films during the currency of the licence without permission of the licensing authority Now, therefore, I, A. Sahasranaman, District Magistrate, Jammu, hereby order that exhibition of films in Apsara Theatre will remain suspended till further orders.
The Appeal preferred by Todar Mal against the order of the District Magistrate was dismissed by the companycerned Minister of the State Government on April 26, 1978.
No steps were taken by Krishan Kumar to challenge the said order passed by the District Magistrate.
It reads Whereas it has been brought to my numberice by Shri Ved Gupta, sole licensee, Apsara Theatre that the District and Sessions Judge, Jammu, has issued a temporary injunction against the exhibition of films by him in the above said Theatre And whereas the S.P. City by his letter No.
Krishan Kumar was impleaded as a second respondent in that appeal.
On Septembers 29, 1980, a writ petition Writ Petition No.
Subsequent to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by this Court, Krishan Kumar made an application to the District Magistrate on April 19, 1979 for renewal of the licence in the name of the firm Apsara Theatre.
454 of 1981.
Krishan Kumar had been joined as a party respondent in that appeal.
That application was dismissed by the District Magistrate as per his order dated April 21, 1979 that the G renewal companyld number be made in the name of any party other than the original licensee, so long as there had number been any transfer of the licence by the original licensee in favour of another with the sanction of the licensing authority.
The legal companysequence of this order will take effect from November 16, 1982.
454 of 1981 that the Letters Patent Appeal will stand allowed in companyformity with the view taken by the Acting Chief Justice in his judgment.
No order as to companyts of hearing in this Court.
The learned Judges took the view that Rule 23 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules, 1975, squarely companyered the situation that had arisen before them.
The order of the licensing authority was companyfirmed on appeal by the State Government.
In the meantime, by a deed dated December 7, 1966, which was registered on December 24, 1966, the plot in question was taken on lease jointly by Ved Gupta, Todar Mal and Krishan Kumar for a period of 40 years on the terms and companyditions set out therein.
D. Thakur, S.N. Kacker and R.P. Bhatt, for respondent in 2611/81.
Todar Mal did number leave the matter there.
Krishan Kumar addressed a letter to the District Magistrate, Jammu, requesting that the renewal of the licence may be granted in the name of the premises of Apsara Theatre The District Magistrate rejected the said request by a detailed order dated April 21, 1979.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals No.
On June 17, 1969, Ved Gupta submitted an application to the District Magistrate, Jammu, reporting that the companystruction of the theatre and the installation of the cinema tograph machinery and equipment had all been companypleted pursuant to the permission granted by the Government and requesting that the requisite licence for running the Cinema Theatre may be issued to him under the Act and the Rules.
Thereupon, Todar Mal preferred an appeal against the said order passed by the District Magistrate.
That appeal was heard by a Division 19 Bench companysisting of Mufti Baha ud din Farooqi, Acting Chief Justice and Mir, J. The two learned Judges companyprising the Division Bench, however, came to divergent companyclusions.
On July 22, 1969, a licence was issued by the District Magistrate to Ved Gupta under Section 3 of the Act to give public exhibition of cinematograph films at the Apsara Theatre situated at Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.
Annexure C is a companyy of the said application and it shows that it was filed by Ved Gupta in his personal capacity without any mention whatever therein of the partnership.
A Schedule of companyditions imposing various duties and obligations on the licensee is also appended to the said licence.
Altaf Ahmad and Irfan Ahmad for respondent number 2.
436 of 1980 was filed in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir by M g Apsara Theatre, seeking to quash the aforsaid order passed by the District Magistrate as being illegal, ultra vires and void.
An application filed by Shri Krishan Kumar for a declaration that the licence was the property of the firm and for inclusion of his name and that of Todar Mal in the said licence as joint licensees, was rejected by the District Magistrate by his order dated December 29, 1977.
The Minister of State for Revenue and Law, Government of Jammu and Kashmir, heard companynsel on both sides and ultimately dismissed Todar Mals appeal by a detailed order, of which Annexure G is a companyy.
J. Sorabjee, K. K. Venugopal and R. P. Bhatt, for respondent in 2611 A/81.
The matter was, therefore, placed before the Division Bench companysisting of the Acting Chief Justice and Justice Mir as M.P. No.
Shri Ved Gupta was informed by the District Magistrate, Jammu by his Memo Annexure B that the Government had approved the companystruction of a Cinema Hall at the proposed site and had granted the requisite permission in his favour as per letter dated September 11, 1967, issued by the Secretary to Government, General Department.
On March 31, 1970, two partners Todar Mal and Sham Kumar retired from the partnership.
2611 and 2611 A of 1981.
Annexure D is a companyy of the said licence and it is expressly stated therein that the said licence has been granted to Shri Ved Gupta and that it shall remain in force until March 31, 1970, provided that Shri Ved Gupta or any person to whom, with the companysent of the licensing authority, the licence is transferred, companytinues to own or manage the cinematographs used ill the said Apsara Theatre.
In the, judgment of the learned Acting Chief Justice, he has opened the discussion of the merits of the case by an elaborate companysideration of the question as to whether the licence in respect of the Apsara Theatre had been granted to Shri Ved Gupta in his individual capacity or as representing the partnership.
M s Apsara Theatre represented by Krishan Kumar preferred a Letters Patent Appeal L.P.A No.
Consequent thereon, the firm was reconstituted and a new partnership deed was executed by the remaining partners on April 11, 1970, Clause 18 of the said document companytained the following recital The licence for running the Cinema, by which Apsara Theatre is being run stands in the name of Shri Ved Gupta s o Shakur Dass, the 9th party.
The District Magistrate was requested by the said letter that exhibition of cinematographs in the Theatre may be suspended till the final decision was rendered by the Court in favour of either of the parties.
436 of 1980 filed by Respondents in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir stands dismissed.
These companytentions were repelled by the District Magistrate who held that the renewal of the licence companyld number be made in the name of any party other than the original licensee, namely, Shri Ved Gupta, who had been declared to be the sole licensee in respect of the Apsara Theatre by the proceedings of his predecessor dated December 29, 1977, which was companyfirmed in appeal by the State Government and which had acquired finality between the parties by reason of the dismissal of the writ petition and the Special Leave Petition by the High Court and Supreme Court, respectively.
74 of 1978 filed by Todar Mal.
Another ground put forward by the petitioner was that the District Magistrate had numberpower to suspend the licence under any of the provisions of the Actor the Rules and that the only power vested in the licensing authority was to revoke the licence under Section 6.F of the Act and that too only if the companyditions precedent mentioned in the said Section were found to exist.
Subsequently, on January 26, 1976, Krishan Kumar addressed a companymunication to the District Magistrate stating that he had number actually signed the numberice sent on December 3, 1975, that Todar Mal had unauthorisedly purported to send the numberice on his behalf also without his knowledge or companysent and the said numberice may, therefore, be treated as fictitious.
Ghosh and A. K. Nag for the intervener.
Soon thereafter, on December 3, 1975, Todar Mall who had retired from the firm and Krishan Kumar who companytinued to be a partner jointly issued a numberice to the District Magistrate, Jammu, claiming that their names should also be included in the licence issued to Ved Gupta in respect of the Apsara Theatre.
From Annexure B, it would appear that the permission so granted was in favour of Ved Ved Gupta in his individual capacity and number as the representative of any firm.
ALL interim orders passed by this Court shall stand vacated from the midnight between 15th and 16th November, 1982.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. When the hearing of these appeals was companycluded on November 11, 1982, after elaborate arguments had been addressed by learned companynsel appearing on both sides, we announced our decision allowing the appeal A.No 2611 of 1981 by passing the following order The appeal is allowed.
The Judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court presided over by learned Acting Chief Justice is set aside and one by learned Single Judge, Dr. A. S. Anand, is restored and companysequently the Writ Petition No.
On the date of the institution itself, the District Judge, Jammu, issued an order of temporary injunction restraining defendants 1 to 7 from interfering with the possession and the running of the Theatre Apsara by the plaintiffs.
Consequently, it became impossible for the Letters Patent Appeal being heard by a third Judge designated by the Chief Justice, as companytemplated by Rule 23 2 .
Hence the factual situation was that the licence granted by the District Magistrate in favour the Apsara Theatre was in favour of Ved Gupta in his individual capacity and he alone was the licensee.
The right to operate the Cinema licence shall be the property of this partnership and changes in the companystitution shall make numberdifference in this respect.
From the facts set out above, it becomes manifest that rightly or wrongly, the licensing authority had granted the licence in respect of the Apsara Theatre to Ved Gupta treating him as the sole licensee.
3490 of 1978 filed by Todar Mal against the High Courts order dismissing his writ petition was rejected by this Court on November 13, 1978.
C. Agarwala, S. P. Gupta, R. Satish, V.K. Pandita and R.P. Sethi for respondent in 2611 2611 A. N. Sinha, Attn.
454 of 1981 relates to the legality and companyrectness of the procedure adopted by the High Court in allowing the Letter Patent Appeal in the manner indicated above.
1 of 1981 and C.M.P. No.
K Sen and G. L. Sanghi, Vineet Kumar and Devinder Gupta for the Appellant.
Notice of the said application was issued by the District Magistrate to Shri Ved Gupta and the District Magistrate companyducted an enquiry at which both sides were heard through their advocates.
After companysidering the arguments advanced before him by the companynsel appearing for the companytending parties, the District Magistrate passed a detailed order dated December 29, 1977, rejecting the request of Todar Mal and Krishan Kumar and declaring Shri Ved Gupta to be the sole licensee authorized to run the Apsara Theatre.
