HER HIGHNESS MAHARANI MANDALSA DEVI AND ORS. versus M. RAMNARAIN (P) LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [1965] 3 S.C.R. 421 · Decided: 19-03-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

421 
A 
HEit IDGHNESS MAHARANI MANDALSA DEVI AND ORS. 
B 
0 
D 
E 
r 
G 
v. 
M. RAMNARAIN (P) LTD. AND ORS. 
March 19, 1965 
IK. SuBBA RAo, J.C. SHAH AND R. S. BA<CHAWAT, JJ.J 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908), ss. 87, 87-B Orde1 
21, Rule 50(2) and Order 30-Execution against partners of a 
firm-Ruler of Indian State a partner-Liability of partners-
Defences available-Protection to Ruler of a State--If available to 
rest. 
Under Order 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure the respondent 
No. 1 a firm sued another firm of which the appellants and a Ruler 
of a former Indian State were partners. The consent of the Central 
Government to the institution of the suit under s. 87-B of the Code 
of Civil Procedure was not obtained. The firm admitted the liability 
and the Court passed a decree and di.reeled that the cjecretal 
.amount would be payable in certain instalments. On the firm's 
default in paying the instalments an application was filed under 
Order 21 Rule 50(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to 
execute the decree against the appellants, excepting the Ruler as 
partners of the firm. The Court allowed the application. The ap-
pellants' appeal was (lismissed by the High Court. On appeal by 
certificate; 
HELD: (i) The suit so far as it was one against the Ruler was 
incompetent and the decree against the firm so far as it was a 
decree against him personally was a nullity. In the absence of the 
requisite consent ol the Central Goviernment a suit ag.,inst the 
Ruler was barred by s. 87 read withs. 87-B. [425 F, G]. 
(ii) The application of respondent No. 1 under Order +1 Rule 
50(2) for leave to execute. the decree against the other partners 
was mainta·inable. (427 G]. 
A suit may be brought under the provisions of 0. 30 of the Code 
a2ainst a firm of which a partner is not capable of being sued or 
being adjudged a debtor, and in such a suit a decree enforceable 
against the other partner and the partnership assets may be passed. 
[427 B]. 
Case law referred to. 
(iii) In an application under 0. 21 Rule 50(2) the judgment-
de btor could q uest10n the decree on the ground of collusion, fraud 
or the hke but so as not to have the suit tried over again or to 
raise issues between himself and his other partners. ( 428 A]. 
H 
The Judgment-debtor was also entitled to raise a plea of special 
protection under the law; and might also defend the application 
on the. ground that the decree sought to be executed against him 
is a nullity. But m the instant case none of the appellants was 
entitled to any special protecmon; nor was it alleged that respondent 
No. 1 was a party to any fraud or collusion or that it obtained the 
decree by fraud or collusion. [ 428 B, CJ. 
Gambhir Ma! Pandiya v. J. K. Jute Mi!!$ Co. Ltd., Kanpur 
[lg63] 3 S. C. R. 190 relied upon. 
422 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1965j a S.C.R. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1964. 
A 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated November 21, 1958 
of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 31 of 1958. 
D. N. Mukherjee; for the appellants. 
G. S. Pathak, S. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, for respon-
dent No. l. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bachawat, J. Maharaja Sir Rajendra Prakash Bahadur 
Maharaja of Sirmur, Maharani Mandalsa Kumari Debi Rajmata of 
Sirmur, Maharani Premlata Debi of Chhota Udaipur, Maiyan Sahiba 
Sheba Kumari Debi of Jharipani, Major Rao Raja Sirendra Singh, 
Jagat Pershad, Shib Chander Kumar, Praduman Kumar and 
Dayawati Rani carried on business in co-partnership under the firm 
na/ne and style of Messrs. Jagatsons International Corporation 
(hereinafter referred to as the firm) at New Delhi. Respondent 
No. !, Ramnarain (Private) Ltd. instituted Summary Suit No. 162 
of l 957 against Messrs. Jagatsons International Corporation on the 
Original Side of the Bombay High Court claiming a money decree 
for Rs. 1,96,831.58 N.P. The suit was·instituted on the allegation 
that respondent No. 1 and the firm had entered into an agreement 
in writing dated September 26, 1956, whereby respondent No. 1 
agreed to provide finance to the firm, as a result of the dealings 
under the agreement a sum of Rs. 1,96,831.58 N.P. was due to 
respondent No. 1 from the firm, and in view of the breaches of the 
agreement by the firm, the agreement has stood terminated. The 
consent of the Central Government to the institution of the suit 
was not obtained, though the Maharaja of Sirmur is a Ruler of 
the former Indian.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.