Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.24 seconds)Svapn Constructions vs Idpl Employees Cooperative Group ... on 20 December, 2005
The Supreme Court, however, by its
Order dated 15.04.2010 passed in Civil Appeal No.3336/2007, titled
M/S. SVAPN Construction v. IDPL Employees Cooperative Group
House Society Ltd. & Ors., set aside the Judgment of this Court by
holding that the High Court had taken a hyper-technical view of the
matter. It held that the law has to do substantial justice and not to go
by these hyper-technicalities.
Ganesh Trading Co vs Moji Ram on 25 January, 1978
"11. The High Court had also referred
to Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal. v. National
Building Material Supply, Gurgaon
[1970] 1 SCR 22 but had failed to follow
the principle which was clearly laid
down in that case by this Court. There,
the plaintiff had instituted a suit in the
name of Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal which
was the name in which the business of a
firm was carried on. Later on, the
plaintiff had applied to amend the plaint
so that the description may be altered
into "Manohar Lal Proprietor Jai Jai
Ram Manohar Lal." The plaintiff also
sought to clarify paragraph 1 of the
plaint so that it may be evident that "Jai
Jai Ram Manohar Lal" was only the
firm's name. The defendant pleaded that
Manohar Lal was not the sole
proprietor. One of the objections of the
defendant in that case was that the suit
by Manoharlal as sole owner would be
time barred on 18th July, 1952, when the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 1318/2018 Page 17 of 22
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:14.11.2024
19:28:13
amendment was sought. In that case, the
High Court had taken the hyper
technical view that Jai Ram Manohar
Lal being "a non-existing person" the
Trial Court could not allow an
amendment which converted a non-
existing person into a "person" in the
eye of law so that the suit may not be
barred by time. This Court while
reversing this hypertechnical view
observed:
P.C. Advertising vs The Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 1 April, 1998
42. In view of the above Judgments, it must be held that not only
can the defendant be sued in the assumed name, but even where the
Suit is filed in the assumed name, it would at best be a technical
defect, which can be cured by the plaintiff at a later date. The
Judgment of this Court in P.C. Advertising (supra) and Kazi Bashir
Rahaman (supra) holding to the contrary would not be a good law in
view of the Judgments of the Supreme Court referred to hereinabove.
Miraj Marketing Corporation vs Vishaka Engineering And Anr. on 23 November, 2004
In Miraj Marketing Corporation (supra), the Court was
considering the situation where the Suit is filed in the name of the
proprietorship concern and not a case, like the present, where the
defendant is arrayed in the name of the proprietorship concern and not
the proprietor. As noted hereinabove, the present situation will
squarely fall within the ambit and scope of Order XXX Rule 10 of the
CPC and the Judgments referred to hereinabove.
Ashok Transport Agency vs Awadhesh Kumar And Another on 31 March, 1998
In Ashok Transport Agency (supra), the Supreme Court held
that the provision of Order XXX Rule 10 of the CPC enables the
proprietor to be sued in the business name of his proprietorship
concern. The Supreme Court held that for such cases, the real party
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 1318/2018 Page 13 of 22
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:14.11.2024
19:28:13
who is being sued is the proprietor of the said business. I may quote
from the judgment as under:
Rasiklal Manickchand Dhariwal & Anr vs M/S M.S.S.Food Products on 25 November, 2011
In Rasikalal Manikchand Dhariwal (supra), the Supreme Court
after considering Order XXX Rule 10 of the CPC, held that though the
said provision does not enable a person carrying on business in a name
and style other than in his own name to sue in such a name or style, a
plaint filed in the name of the proprietorship concern rather than in the
name of the proprietor himself at best may be called to be not in a
proper order. It would not be an illegality which goes to the root of the
matter. I may quote from the judgment as under:
P.D. Verma And Co. vs Laxmi Builders on 29 October, 2014
In support of his submission, he places reliance on the Judgments of
the Supreme Court in Ashok Transport Agency v. Awadesh Kumar &
Anr, (1998) 5 SCC 567; Rasikalal Manikchand Dhariwal & Anr. v.
M.S.S. Food Products, (2012) 2 SCC 196, and of this Court in P.D.
Verma and Co v. Laxmi Builders, (2014) SCC OnLine Del 2160;
Sushila v. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., (2022) SCC
OnLine Del 3188 and, K.S. Exports v. Ethopian Airlines, 2011 SCC
OnLine Del 4978, and of High Court of Bombay in Satsahib Cotton
Pressing Factory v C.A. Galiakotwala and Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2017 SCC
OnLine Bom 7783, and of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in
Ushadevi W/O Late Radheshyam Agarwal & Anr. v. Cotton
Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr., 2019 SCC OnLine MP 6113.
M/S Scg Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. vs Ks Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on 12 February, 2019
In support,
he places reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in SCG
Contracts (India) (P) Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure (P) Ltd.
& Ors., (2019) 12 SCC 210.
United Bank Of India vs Sh. Naresh Kumar And Ors on 18 September, 1996
51. As held by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments,
procedure is the handmaid of justice and not its mistress. A party
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 1318/2018 Page 20 of 22
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:14.11.2024
19:28:13
should not be non-suited on mere technicalities of law. Substantive
rights should not be allowed to be defeated on technical grounds or
procedural irregularity so as to ensure that no injustice is done to any
party {Refer: United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar & Ors., (1996)
6 SCC 660; Uma Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh &
Anr., (2006) 1 SCC 75; and Varun Pahwa v. Renu Chaudhary,
(2019) 15 SCC 628}.