TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1961 (3) TMI 117
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es 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 Railway 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 an allot wagons for the said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e are not concerned in the present appeal, it was contended on behalf of the Union of India (respondent) that the appellant was not entitled to maintain the suit as the two notices under s. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not valid and sufficient, but were defective. 3. When the matter came to trial before the Subordinate Judge, he held in favour of the appellant on the question whether there was negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railway administration; but he dismissed the suit on the ground that the two notices under s. 80 were defective inasmuch they had been issued by S. N. Dutt and Co. and not on behalf of the appellant. There was then an appeal by S. N. Dutt before the High Court. The High Court agreed with the Sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....becomes not maintainable in view of the bar of s. 80. 5. As far back as 1927, the Privy Council in Bhagchand Dagadusa v. Secretary of State for India in Council had to consider the true application of s. 80 and held that s. 80 was explicit and mandatory and admitted of no implications or exceptions and had to be strictly complied with and was applicable to all forms of action and all kinds of relief. In particular, with reference to the name, the Privy Council had to consider the matter in Al. Ar. Vellayan Chettiar v. Government of the Province of Madras In that case the suit was brought by two plaintiffs but the notice was given by only one of them. The Privy Council held that this could not be done and observed that "section 80, accord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the terms of the notice should be scrutinized in a pedantic manner or in a manner completely divorced for common sense. As was stated by Pollock C. B. in Jones v. Nicholls (154 E.R. 149), 'We must import a little common sense into notices of this kind'. Beaumont C.J., also observed in Chandulal Vedilal v. Government of Bombay (I.L.R. 1943 Bom. 128) : One must construe section 80 with some regard to common sense and to the object with which it appears to have been passed." 8. The next case to which reference was made is The State of Madras v. C.P. Agencies AIR1960SC1309 . The question in that case was whether the cause of action had been stated as required by s. 80, and this Court held that the cause of action had been stated i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e terms :- "Under instructions from my client Messrs. S. N. Dutt and Co. of Krishnagar, I beg to give your notice that my said client will bring a suit for damages in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia at Krishnagar against the B & A Railway Administration". 11. In the plaint, the description of the plaintiff was in these terms :- "Surrendra Nath Dutta sole proprietor of a business carried on under the name and style of S. N. Dutt & Co. of Krishnagar, P. S. Krishnagar, District Nadia". 12. It will be immediately obvious that the notices were in the name of Messrs. S. N. Dutt and Co., while the suit was filed by S. N. Dutt claiming to be the sole proprietor of Messrs. S. N. Dutt and Co. It is urged on behalf ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t name and style on behalf of an individual, S. N. Dutt. As was pointed out by the Privy Council in Pestonji Ardeshir Wadia's case (1949) L.R. 76 IndAp 85, the case of members of a firm stood on a different footing, for the members of a firm might sue in the name of the firm; but in the present cases Messrs. S. N. Dutt and Co. is not a firm; it is merely the name and style in which an individual (namely, S. N. Dutt) is carrying on business and though the individual may in certain circumstances be sued in that name and style, he would have no right to sue in that name. Therefore, where an individual carries on business in some name and style the notice has to be given by the individual in his own name, for the suit can only be filed in t....