9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Competency of displaced persons to maintain an application under the Act in the name of the firm. 2. Applicability of the Act to cases of damages for breach of contract. Detailed Analysis: 1. Competency of displaced persons to maintain an application under the Act in the name of the firm: The primary issue is whether displaced persons can maintain an application under Act 70 of 1951 in the name of the firm in which they are carrying on business. The definition of "displaced person" under Section 2(10) is central to this determination. The definition includes individuals who have left or been displaced from their place of residence due to the setting up of the Dominions of India and Pakistan or due to civil disturbances. The argument presented was that this definition could only apply to individuals and not to firms, as a firm cannot "reside" in the sense intended by the definition. The judgment clarified that a firm is not a legal entity but a compendious way of describing the partners who constitute it. Therefore, if the individual partners satisfy the definition of "displaced person," the application can be maintained in the firm's name. The court emphasized that the right of the partners to maintain the application cannot be disputed or challenged, and it is more a question of procedure than substantive right whether the application is made in the name of the firm or the individual partners. The procedural question was whether Order 30, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) applied to proceedings under the Displaced Persons Act. Section 25 of the Act states that all proceedings under the Act shall be regulated by the provisions of the CPC unless otherwise provided. The court held that Order 30, Rule 1, which allows partners to sue in the name of the firm, applies to proceedings before the tribunal. Therefore, the application made by the respondent firm was maintainable. 2. Applicability of the Act to cases of damages for breach of contract: The second issue was whether the Act covers cases of damages for breach of contract. The definition of "debt" under Section 2(6) of the Act includes any pecuniary liability, whether ascertained or to be ascertained, and whether payable presently or in the future. The court examined whether a claim for damages for breach of contract constitutes a "debt" under this definition. The judgment emphasized that for a claim to be considered a debt, there must be an existing pecuniary liability. In cases of breach of contract, the right to recover damages does not arise from an existing obligation but from the court's determination of liability and assessment of damages. Therefore, a claim for unliquidated damages does not constitute a debt within the meaning of the Act. The court concluded that the Act does not cover applications for damages for breach of contract, as such claims do not represent an existing pecuniary liability. The tribunal set up under the Act is intended for the adjustment of debts, not for the determination and assessment of damages. Conclusion: The court set aside the order of the learned judge below, holding that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the applications for damages for breach of contract. Consequently, the applications were dismissed with costs throughout.
|
