VED GUPTA versus APSARA THEATRES

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 575 · Decided: 11-08-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

; 
• > 
575 
VED GUPTA 
v. 
APSARA THEATRES 
August 11, 1983 
[D.A. DESAI AND V. BALAKRISIINA BRAD!, JJ.J, 
Jammu and Kashmir (Cinematograph) Act, 1989 (1933 A.D.}-Licence for 
exhibition of cinematograph films in a theatre-Whether it constitutes an interest 
attached to the pren1ises in which cinematogra"ph is installed ?-When premises 
and cinematograph are owned by a partnership and the licence is held by a partner 
in his individual capacity, whetherthe partnership firm acquires any interest in the 
licence.?- Whether s.6F lends support to such a view? 
The appellant, purporting to Act On behalf of a partnership consisting 
of himself, Todar Mal and Krishan Kumar, applied for and obtained permission 
in his individual capacity to construct a cinema theatre on a plot of land which 
was taken on lease jointly by all the three of them after the application for ·the 
permission was made but before the same was granted. They entered into a 
partnership along with 11 others for carrying on the business of constructing 
and running a cine1na the~tre and the deed of partnership contained a clause 
that the pJot of land -~s well as the permission obtained for constructing the 
theatre shall be the property of the firm. On completion of the constructio.D. the 
appelJant applied for, in his own name, and obtained in his personal capacity, 
a licence to exhibit cinematograph films at the Theatre. The partnership was 
re.constituted on retirement of two partners and the new deed executed by the 
remaining partners also contained a clause that the firm shall have the right to 
operate the licence. An application for inclusion of the names of Todar Mal 
. and Krishan Kumar in the licence was rejected by an order of the Licensing 
Authority who held that the appellant was the sole licensee and the said order 
became final. Another application for renewal of the. licence in the name of 
the Theatre on the ground that the appellant had been expelled from the 
partnership was also rejected by an order of the Licensing Authority _which was 
not challeni:;ed. Thereafter when, in a suit instituted for a declaration that the 
licence was the property of the firm, the trial court issued an injunction restrain· 
ing the appellant from interfering· with the possession and running of the 
Theatre by some of the partners of the firm, the appellant wrote to the 
Licensing Authority disclaiming responsibility for any acts of commission or 
omi6sion committed by others in the~premises of the Theatre. The Licensing 
Authority, acting on a report from the police that films were being exhibited in 
the Theatre by persons other than the licensee, ordered suspension of exhibition 
of films at the Theatre. A writ petition chaUenging the validity of this order 
filed in the name of the Theatre was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High 
Court. In the Letters Patent Appeal heard by a Division Bench consisting of 
the Acting Chief Justice anoth,er Judge of the High Court the Acting Chief 
Justice held that the impugned order was void but the other Judge agreed with 
the vie~ of the Single Jud$e who had d,ismlssed the petition earlier. In view ef 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
.B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
'176 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
t 1983} 3 s.c.R. 
the divergence of opinion, the maiter was referred to the only other Judge avail-
able in the High Court, but he having declined to hear the same for good 
reason, the Division Bench decided under sub-r. (3) of r. 23 of the Jammu and 
Kashmir High Court Rules, 1975 that the view of the Senior Judge should pre 
vail and accordingly the Letters Patent Appeal was allowed in conformity with 
·the view taken by the Acting Chief Justice. This resulted in the anomalous 
situation that as against the view concurrently taken by two Judges of the High 
Court, the opinion of the Acting Chief Justice which was really the minority 
view was allowed to prevail. 
The reasons given by the Acting Chief Justice for the view he took 
were : (i) that a licence under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir 
(Cinematograpb) Act is granted for premises permanently equipped for cinem-
tograph exhibition in the name of the owner/manager of the cinem_atographs 
used in the premises and hence, where the licer,sed premises including the 
cinematograph used therein belongs to a partnership and one of the partnerS. 
obtains a licence in bis separate name, the other partners automatically acquire 
an interest in the licence and that the privileg

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.