Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)Section 16 in The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930 [Entire Act]
Section 41 in The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930 [Entire Act]
Svapn Constructions vs Idpl Employees Cooperative Group ... on 20 December, 2005
17. It is urged by the appellant/plaintiff that in so far as
defendant No.1 is concerned, the plaintiff's case has to be
accepted because the proceeding against defendant No.1 was ex-
parte as he did not join the proceedings of the case despite being
served with the summons. A bare perusal of the plaint shows that
the plaintiff has instituted the suit against proprietorship firm
without impleading its proprietor. The fact that defendant No.1 is
a proprietorship firm is clear from the documents Ex. PW1/2 and
Ex. D2W1/P1 (colly). A proprietorship firm has no legal entity
which can sue or be sued in its own name. Reliance in this regard
can be placed on Miraj Marketing Corporation Vs. Vishaka
Engineering & Anr., 115(2004)DLT471, and Svapn
Constructions Vs. IDPL Employees Co-operative Group
Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., 127(2006)DLT80. Therefore, the
suit of the plaintiff was defective against defendant No.1 since it
was instituted against a proprietorship firm without impleading
its proprietor.
The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930
Section 39 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Miraj Marketing Corporation vs Vishaka Engineering And Anr. on 23 November, 2004
17. It is urged by the appellant/plaintiff that in so far as
defendant No.1 is concerned, the plaintiff's case has to be
accepted because the proceeding against defendant No.1 was ex-
parte as he did not join the proceedings of the case despite being
served with the summons. A bare perusal of the plaint shows that
the plaintiff has instituted the suit against proprietorship firm
without impleading its proprietor. The fact that defendant No.1 is
a proprietorship firm is clear from the documents Ex. PW1/2 and
Ex. D2W1/P1 (colly). A proprietorship firm has no legal entity
which can sue or be sued in its own name. Reliance in this regard
can be placed on Miraj Marketing Corporation Vs. Vishaka
Engineering & Anr., 115(2004)DLT471, and Svapn
Constructions Vs. IDPL Employees Co-operative Group
Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., 127(2006)DLT80. Therefore, the
suit of the plaintiff was defective against defendant No.1 since it
was instituted against a proprietorship firm without impleading
its proprietor.
Section 13 in The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930 [Entire Act]
1