Must Read

M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, 1964

Image
M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, (1964) 6 SCR 642, 651 This case interpretation/case summary is written by Ms. Swati Sharma a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to  niyamskanoon09@gmail.com . Case Details PETITIONER:  MRS. M. N. CLUBWALA AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: FIDA HUSSAIN SAHEB AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1964 BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. SUBBARAO, K. CITATION: 1965 AIR 610 1964 SCR (6) 642 Introduction   The case of M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb (1964) under the Delhi Rent Control Act is a landmark judgment that clarifies the distinction between a lease and a license and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The primary issue in this case was whether the agreements between the landlord (M.N. Clubwala) and the shopkeepers (Fida Hussain Saheb) created a lease or a license.  Facts of the Case M.N. Clubwala (Landlord) used his building as market by
Post a Comment

Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Bldg. Material Supply, AIR 1969 SC 1267

Introduction

This case is related to amendment of pleadings Rule 17 of Order VI, CPC clearly mentioned this provision of amending the plea. Under this rule, the Court may allow either party to amend or alter his pleadings at any stage of proceedings. This rule empowers the Court to allow amendment of pleadings for the purpose of determining the real question.

Facts

  • The plaintiff-Manohar Lal instituted a suit in the name of appellant-Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal, since all the business were carried in the name of appellant. 
  • The suit was filed in the Court of subordinate Judge for a recovery of the payment due to the defendant for supplying timber. 
  • The defendant contended that as the plaintiff was an unregistered firm, it is incompetent to sue. 
  • The plaintiff applied for leave to amend the plaint which had been allowed by the Court. 
  • The defendant now in a written statement made two contentions:- 
    1. Manohar Lal was not the sole owner of the business but his other brothers were also the owners.
    2. The amendments were made after two years therefore the suit will take effect from this date of amendment that means the suit is now debarred by limitations law.

Case History

  • The Trial Judge gave decree in favor of the plaintiff. 
  • On appeal in the HC by the defendant, the Court held that :-
    1. the suit instituted in the name of a " non existing person" and no amendment could be made in the description of such plaintiff who did not exist in the eye of law.
    2. since the plaintiff was failed to amend the plaint on account of some bona fide mistake or omission, the Sub Judge was incompetent to grant leave for amend. 
    3. the amendment had no retrospective effect therefore on the date of amendment the suit was barred by limitation.
  • Against the order of HC the plaintiff filed an appeal in SC

Issues before SC

  1. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to grant for leave to amend his suit.
  2. Whether the amendment had retrospective effect or not? 

Ratio Decidendi

  1. The HC was error in considering the plaintiff as a "non existing person" as in the suit there was an existing person who was got misdescribed.
  2. It is not a rule to grant leave for amendment only after it is expressly stated in the amendment application that the omission or misdescription is due to a bona fide mistake.
  3. However negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side.
  4. No question of limitation arises in the case of misdescription.
  5. It is a well settled rule to allow all amendment for the purpose of determining the real question, unless by permitting amendment injustice may result to other side.

Decision

  1. Allowed appeal
  2. Set aside the order of the HC.
  3. Plaintiff was entitled to grant for leave to amend his suit.
  4. The name in which the action was instituted was merely a misdescription, so no question of limitation arises.
  5. Defendant has to pay the costs in SC and HC.


Get more updates -

LinkedIn:- Niyamskanoon

Instagram:- Niyams_kanoon

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more