TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court rules notices invalid due to lack of identity, suit non-maintainable under s. 80</h1> The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the notices under s. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure were invalid due to the lack of identity ... - Issues:1. Validity of notices under s. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Compliance with the requirement of identity of the person issuing the notice with the person bringing the suit.Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of notices under s. 80 of the Code of Civil ProcedureThe case involved an appeal against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court regarding a claim for damages due to alleged misconduct and negligence by the Bengal and Assam Railway administration. The appellant, a sole proprietor of a business, gave notices under s. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming damages. The central issue was whether the notices were in conformity with s. 80, specifically regarding the name mentioned in the notices. The section mandates that the notice must state the cause of action, the plaintiff's name, description, and place of residence. The defect in this case was the discrepancy in the name mentioned in the notices and the plaintiff who filed the suit.Issue 2: Compliance with the requirement of identity of the person issuing the notice with the person bringing the suitThe Supreme Court referred to past judgments, including those by the Privy Council, emphasizing the strict compliance required under s. 80. The Court noted that the identity of the person issuing the notice must match the person bringing the suit. The notices in this case were issued in the name of the business entity, while the suit was filed by the individual proprietor. The Court highlighted that the business name was not a partnership firm but merely a trade name for the individual. As per legal principles, the notice had to be given by the individual in his own name, as the suit could only be filed in the name of the individual. The Court concluded that the notices did not comply with the requirement of identity and, therefore, rendered the suit non-maintainable under s. 80.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the notices were not valid under s. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure due to the lack of identity between the person issuing the notice and the person bringing the suit. The Court emphasized the strict compliance required by the law in such matters and rejected arguments based on the nature of the business entity as a trade name rather than a partnership firm. The judgment reiterated the importance of adhering to legal formalities, especially concerning the specifics outlined in statutory provisions like s. 80.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
