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

M/s Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram AIR 1978 SC 484

Facts

Appellant-Plaintiff, filed a suit through Shri Jai Prakash, a partner of the firm, for the recovery of some amount due on the respondent-defendant, based on a promissory note. The suit was filed just before the expiry of the period of limitation for the claim of payment The respondent-defendant in a written statement denied the assertions made in the plaint and also contended that the suit was incompetent as the plaintiff-appellant was not a registered firm. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an application, under Rule 17, Order VI of the Civil Code, for a grant of leave to amend the plaint that was rejected by the Trial Court, on the ground that it would introduce a new cause of action. The plaintiff wanted to mention in the plaint that the plaintiff's firm was actually dissolved prior to the institution of the suit. He asserted that it is a material fact that will enable the Court to determine the true question. A revision petition before the HC was placed by the plaintiff which also had been refused on the ground that a new claim is being sought on the basis of new facts. Against the order of HC, this appeal arose in the SC.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to leave to amend the plaint.
  2. Whether the view taken by the HC was right

Ratio Decidendi

  1. Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Bldg. Material Supply, AIR 1969 SC 1267:- The HC  had failed to follow the principle, "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."
  2. A different or additional approach to the same facts could be allowed after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation.
  3. No question of limitation arose in cases where it seeks to bring mere a clarification of what was already there 
  4. Purushottam Umedbhai and Co. v. Manilal & sons:- S. 4 of the Indian Partnership Act uses the term "firm" or "firm name" as "a brief description of all the partners collectively".  
  5. The suit was instituted by a partner and by merely specifying his capacity it could not change the character of the suit or the case as it was making no difference to the rest of the pleadings or cause of action.
  6. The object of the rules of procedure is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes

Decisions

  1. Allowed appeal.
  2. Set aside the orders of HC
  3. The plaintiff was entitled to grant leave to amend under Order VI, Rule17

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