1973 (12) TMI 101 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the suit against Rajasthan Textile Mills.
2. Applicability of Order 30, Rule 10, C. P. C. to a company carrying on business in an assumed name.
3. Entitlement to interest under Section 61(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
4. Calculation of discount on hardware articles and asbestos cement sheets.
5. Decree and award of interest.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Maintainability of the suit against Rajasthan Textile Mills
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money against Rajasthan Textile Mills. The defendant contested the suit, arguing that Rajasthan Textile Mills was not a legal entity and therefore not liable to be sued. The District Judge dismissed the suit, relying on a decision that Rajasthan Textile Mills, not being a corporate body, cannot be sued. However, the High Court held that Rajasthan Textile Mills, being an undertaking owned by a limited company, falls within the purview of Order 30, Rule 10, C. P. C., allowing a person carrying on business in a name other than their own to be sued. The High Court found the suit maintainable against Rajasthan Textile Mills.

Issue 2: Applicability of Order 30, Rule 10, C. P. C. to a company carrying on business in an assumed name
The dispute centered on whether a company carrying on business in an assumed name is covered under Order 30, Rule 10, C. P. C. The District Judge interpreted the rule to apply only to natural persons and not to corporations. However, the High Court disagreed, citing the General Clauses Act's definition of "person" to include companies. The High Court also referenced a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court, which affirmed that a limited company falls within the meaning of "person" under Rule 10. Consequently, the High Court held that a company can be sued in a name other than its own for the purpose of carrying on business.

Issue 3: Entitlement to interest under Section 61(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930
The plaintiff claimed interest on the unpaid amount under Section 61(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The lower court had disallowed interest, stating the absence of a stipulation for payment of interest. However, the High Court found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding interest at a reasonable rate of six per cent per annum due to the delayed payment by the defendant.

Issue 4: Calculation of discount on hardware articles and asbestos cement sheets
The plaintiff sought discount on the goods supplied, with differing rates for hardware articles and asbestos cement sheets. The High Court determined that the defendant was entitled to an 8% discount on hardware articles and a 5% discount on asbestos cement sheets based on the agreement between the parties. After calculating the total discount, the principal amount due to the plaintiff was adjusted accordingly.

Issue 5: Decree and award of interest
In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court's decree, and decreed the suit against the defendant for the adjusted principal amount. The plaintiff was awarded pendente lite and future interest at a rate of six per cent per annum on the principal sum until realization. Costs were to be apportioned based on the success and failure of the parties in both courts.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the key legal issues addressed in the judgment, providing a detailed understanding of the court's decision and reasoning.