Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)The Government Of The Province Of Bombay vs Pestonji Ardeshir Wadia on 11 January, 1949
It cannot therefore be said on a comparison of the
notices in this case with the plaint that there is identity
of the person who issued the notices with the person who
brought the suit. Besides if Messrs. S. N. Dutt and Co.,
not being a partnership firm, could not file a suit in that
name and style on behalf of its members, we cannot see how
S. N. Dutt and Co. could give a valid and legal notice in
that name and style on behalf of an individual, S. N. Dutt.
As was pointed out by the Privy Council in Peslon Ardeshir
Wadias case (1), the case of members of a firm stood on a
different footing, for the members of a firm might sue in
the name of the firm; but in the present case Messrs. S. N.
Dutt and Co. is not a firm; it is merely the name and style
in which an individual (namely, S. N. Dutt) is carrying on
business and though the individual may in certain
circumstances be sued in name and style, he would have no
right to sue in that none. There-,fore, where an individual
carries on business in some name and style the notice has
to' be given by the individual in his own name, for the suit
can only be filed in the name,
(1) (1949) L.R- 76 I.A. 85.
Kamla Prasad Khetan vs The Union Of India(And Connected ... on 1 May, 1957
80. These cases are: Kamta Prasad v. Union of India (1) and
Secretary of State v. Sagarmal Mar. wari (2). In view of
what we have said above, we cannot agree with the view taken
in these oases and must hold that they were wrongly decided.
In this view of the matter, there is no force in this appeal
and it is hereby dismissed with costs.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Bhagchand Dagadusha Gujarati And Ors. vs Secretary Of State For India And Anr. on 15 August, 1923
As far back as 1927, the Privy Council in Bhagchand Dagadusa
v. Secretary of State for India in Council (1) had to
consider the true application of s. 80 and held that s. 80
was explicit and mandatory and admitted of no implications
or exceptions and had to be strictly complied with and was
applicable to all forms of action and all kinds of relief.
Section 69 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Vellayan Chettiar vs Province Of Madras on 2 July, 1947
In particular, with reference to the name the Privy Council
had to consider the matter in Al. Ar. Vellayan Chettiar v.
Government of the Province of Madras (2). In that case the
suit was brought by two plaintiffs but the notice was given
by only one of them. The Privy Council hold that this could
not be done and observed that " section 80,according to its
plain meaning, requires that there, should be identity of
the person who issues the. notice with the person who brings
the suit".
Dhian Singh Sobha Singh & Another vs The Union Of India on 29 October, 1957
Learned counsel for the appellant, however, relies on Dhian
Singh Sobha Singh and another v. The Union of India (1),
where the following observations occur:
Chandulal Vadilal vs Government Of The Province Of Bombay on 5 August, 1942
Beaumont C. J., also observed
in Chandulal Vedilal v. Government of Bombay
(I.L.R. 1943 Bom. 128): One must construe
section 80 with some regard to common sense
and to the object with which it appears to
have been passed."
The State Of Madras vs C.P. Agencies And Anr. on 25 August, 1959
The next case to which reference was made is The State of
Madras v. C. P. Agencies (2 ). The question in that case was
whether the cause of action had been stated as required by
s. 80, and this Court held that the cause of action had been
stated in the notice. This Court also observed that it was
not necessary in that case to consider the two decisions of
the Privy Council (to which reference has already been made
by us) requiring the identity of the person who issues a
notice with the person who brings the suit.
(1) [1958] S.C.R. 781, 795.
1