LexS. N. DUTT versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
March 27. 560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] S. N. DUTT v. UNION OF INDIA (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. vVANCHOO, JJ.) Suit against Government-Notice-Defect as to name of plain- tiff-Effect of-Code of Civil Procedure, I908 (Act 5 of I908), s. So. The appellant was the sole proprietor of a business styled S. N. Dutt & Co. He gave a notice under s. So of the Code of Civil Procedure to the respondent in the name of "S. N. Dutt & Co.". After the requisite period he filed a suit against the res- pondent describing the plaintiff as: "Surendra Nath Dutt sole proprietor of a business carried on under the name and style of S. N. Dutt & Co.'.' The suit was dismissed on the ground that the notice was defective as it was issued by S. N. Dutt & Co. and not the plaintiff. The appellant contended that the notice was valid as S. N. Dutt & Co. was merely the name and style in which S. N. Dutt carried on business and that no suit could have been filed in the name of S. N. Dutt & Co. as it was not a firm. Held, that the notice was defective and that the suit had been rightly dismissed. The person who issued the notice was not the same as the person who filed the suit. Since S. N. Dutt & Co. could not file the suit in that name it could not give a valid and legal notice in that name. A valid notice could have been given only in the name of S. N. Dutt. A defect in the notice as to the name of the plaintiff has to be viewed strictly. Bhagchand Dagadusa v. Secretary of State for Indiain Council, (1927) L.R. 54 I.A. 338, Al. Ar. Vellayan Chettiar v. Government of the Province of Madras, (1947) L.R. 74 I.A. 223 and Government of the Province of Bombay v. Pestonji Ardeshir Wadia, (1949) L.R. 76 I.A. 85, referred to. Dhian Singh Sabha Singh v. The Union of India, [1958] S.C.R. • 781 and The State of Madras v. C. P. Agencies, A.LR. [1960] S.C. 1309, distinguished. Kamta Prasad v. Union of India, (1957) 55 A.L.J. 299 and Secretary of State v. Sagarmal Marwari, A.LR. 1941 Pat. 517, dis- approved. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 191 of 1958. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated February 13, 1956, of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in First Appeal No. 191 of 1949. ~~ B. Sen and Sadhu Singh, for the appellant. • I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 561 Vidyadhar Mah!:t,jan and T. M. Sen, for the respon- dent. 1961. March 27. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO, J.-This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these: The appellant, S. N. Dutt, is the sole proprietor of the business known as "S. N. Dutt & Co." and carried on this business under that name and style at Krishnagore in the district of Nadia in 1944. On May 17, 1944, S. N. Dutt & Co. obtained an order from the military authorities for the supply of 10,000 baskets of mangoes to be delivered at Sealdah Railway Station, every day from May 24, 1944, for ten days at the rate of 1,000 baskets per day. The military authorities made arrangements with the Bengal and Assam Rail- way for the supply of 30 covered wagons at Jiaganj Railway Station at the rate of three wagons per day commencing from May 22, 1944 for this purpose, and this was communicated to the appellant on May 19, 1944. On May 18, 1944, the Divisional Superintendent, Sealdah informed the Station Master at Jiaganj that contractor S. N. Dutt would book and load 30 wagons of mangoes at Jiaganj at the rate of three wagons per day from May 22, 1944 and directed him to accept the booking and allot wagons for the said purpose. The appellant thereupon placed indents with the Station Master Jiaganj for. the supply of the said wagons and began to bring to the Jiaganj Railway Station baskets of mangoes from May 21, 1944. It appears however that wagons were not supplied regu- larly, with the result that whatever consignments reached Sealdah were spoilt and were rejected by the military authorities. On May 30, 1944, the military authorities informed the contractor that the contract had been cancelled on account of the unsatisfactory nature of the supplies. The result of this was that 5004 further baskets of mangoes could not be despatched, though they had been stacked at the railway station \\t Jiaganj. In consequence the mangoes were spoilt 7• S. N. Dutt v. Union of India WancJzoo ]. S. N. Dutt v. Union of Indi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.