Assumed-name suits against companies, reasonable interest on unpaid sale price, and proved discounts all affect the final money claim.

A limited company operating under an assumed name is treated as a "person" for Order 30, Rule 10 of the CPC unless the context repels that meaning, so a suit against the business name is maintainable. Under Section 61(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, reasonable interest may be awarded on unpaid sale price even without an express stipulation when payment is delayed beyond a reasonable time after delivery. The text also notes that proved contractual discounts must be applied, reducing the principal sum due.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a limited company carrying on business in an assumed name can be sued under Order 30, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the unpaid price under Section 61(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930; and (iii) whether the defendant was entitled to the agreed discount on the goods sold.

Issue (i): Whether a limited company carrying on business in an assumed name can be sued under Order 30, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The expression "person" in Order 30, Rule 10 was construed in the light of Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which includes a company within the meaning of person unless the subject or context is repugnant. No repugnancy was found in the Code of Civil Procedure. The rule was treated as intended to facilitate commercial litigation against business concerns operating under names other than their own.

Conclusion: A limited company falls within Order 30, Rule 10 and the suit against the business name was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the unpaid price under Section 61(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.

Analysis: In the absence of an express contractual stipulation, reasonable interest could still be awarded where the price remained unpaid beyond a reasonable time after delivery. The delayed payment justified an award of interest on equitable and statutory grounds under Section 61(2).

Conclusion: Interest was payable at six per cent per annum on the principal sum.

Issue (iii): Whether the defendant was entitled to the agreed discount on the goods sold.

Analysis: The evidence established a different agreed rate for hardware articles and asbestos cement sheets. The admitted arrangement supported 8 per cent discount on hardware articles and 5 per cent on asbestos cement sheets, leading to a recomputation of the principal amount due.

Conclusion: The defendant was entitled to the contractual discount as proved, and the decretal amount had to be reduced accordingly.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the dismissal of the suit was set aside, and the plaintiff obtained a modified money decree for the reduced principal with interest and costs adjusted according to success.

Ratio Decidendi: The term "person" in Order 30, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 includes a limited company unless the context repels that meaning, and reasonable interest may be awarded on unpaid sale price under Section 61(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 even without an express stipulation.

---