9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (12) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 78,254.24 paisa and certain hardware articles worth ₹ 4,936.31 P. total ₹ 83,190.55 P. and paid ₹ 72,896.63 P. on various dates leaving a balance of ₹ 10,293.92 P. When the balance was not paid, the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted against the defendant on 6-8-63 for the recovery of ₹ 10,293.92 P. as principal and ₹ 721/- by way of interest at the rate of 12% per annum total ₹ 11,014.92 P. The defendant contested the suit and pleaded that Rajasthan Textile Mills is not a legal person and no suit was maintainable against it. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had agreed to allow 8% discount on the amount of goods sold by it but no such discount was deducted from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ills Ltd. carried on its business in the name of Rajasthan Textile Mills, the suit in the business name of the company is competent. He, however, conceded and rightly that Rajasthan Textile Mills is not a legal entity or a juristic person and unless the provisions contained in Order 30, Rule 10, C. P. C. are availed of as applicable, the present suit was not maintainable. Order 30, Rule 10, C. P. C. reads as under:-- Order 30, Rule 10-- Any person carrying on business in a name or style other than his own name may be sued in such name or style as if it were a firm name; and, so far as the nature of the case will permit, all rules under this Order shall apply. Rule 10 enables a person to sue another in the assumed name. The underly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Section 3, Clause (42) of the General Clauses Act runs as under:-- In this Act and in all Central Acts and Regulations made after the commencement of this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context- (42) Person shall include any company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not. Keeping in view the above definition of the word 'person', it is obvious that a limited company falls within the purview of the expression 'person' used in Rule 10 of Order 30, C. P. C., unless, of course, the Code of Civil Procedure contains anything in the subject or context which is repugnant to the notion of the limited company falling within the purview of the expression 'p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt for the purpose of deciding this appeal, I may point out that the High Courts in India have expressed conflicting views on the question. In Chidambaram v. National City Bank of New York, AIR 1936 Mad 707, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that Order 30, Rule 10 is applicable only to a case of single individual. So did Buckland, Ag. C. J. in Lalchand v. M. C. Boid Co., AIR 1934 Cal 810 and Munshilal v. Modi Bros., (1947) 51 CWN 563. A contrary view has been expressed in AIR 1944 Cal 138, ,: AIR 1962 Pat 360, AIR 1956 Orissa 186 and. The latter view being in consonance with the definition of the word 'person' in Clause (42) of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act, is, in my opinion, correct one and the expression ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nearly a year and the plaintiff was obliged to institute the present suit for the recovery of the price. In such circumstances, the lower courts should have exercised discretion in favour of the plaintiff and awarded interest on the amount of the price of the goods under Section 61(2) of the Sale of Goods Act. I therefore allow interest at the rate of six per cent per annum which I consider to be a reasonable rate of interest. The learned counsel for the defendant has contended that the lower court ought to have awarded discount of 8 per cent instead of 5 per cent on the amounts of the bills pertaining to hardware articles if not on the asbestos cement sheets. The contention is well founded. P. W. 1 Sefuddin who is a partner of the plai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
