IRON AND HARDWARE INDIA CO Vs. FIRM SHAMLAL AND BROS
LAWS(BOM)-1954-1-16
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on January 14,1954

IRON AND HARDWARE (INDIA) CO Appellant
VERSUS
FIRM SHAMLAL AND BROS. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

DHARAMSEY V.BALKRISHNA PANDURANG [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

VIRGIN RECORDS (I) P. LTD VS. MILESTONE MUSIC DISTRIBUTION [LAWS(BOM)-2001-7-175] [REFERRED TO]
MIRZA JAVED MURTAZA VS. U P FINANCIAL CORPORATION KANPUR [LAWS(ALL)-1982-3-67] [REFERRED TO]
PRAN NATH GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(J&K)-2003-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
ISMAILBHAI SARDARBHAI BHAGWAN VS. KONDI RAVAJI PHADTARE [LAWS(BOM)-1959-9-14] [REFERRED TO]
KAIKKARA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY KAITHAVARAM BUNGLOW VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-3-76] [REFERRED TO]
GURDARSHAN SINGH S/O DALIP SINGH VS. BISHAN SINGH S O UTTAM SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1961-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
NIKO RESOURCES LIMITED VS. GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2020-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
IFCI FACTORS LIMITED VS. JAGANNATH SARANGAPANI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-5-361] [REFERRED TO]
MAHINDRA BRITISH TELECOM LIMITED VS. PRABHAT GUPTA [LAWS(BOM)-2001-9-81] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, THANE VS. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT, MUMBAI [LAWS(BOM)-2016-1-6] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECT LOGISTICS AND EXPORT CO. LTD VS. INFINITY GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAIN LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2023-3-86] [REFERRED TO]
SYNDICATE BANK VS. CHANNAVEERAPPA BELERI [LAWS(SC)-2006-4-99] [REFERRED TO]
GAIL INDIA LTD VS. PARAMOUNT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2010-4-439] [REFERRED]
TORQ COMMODITIES LLC VS. NAVA INVESTMENT PTE LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2019-2-121] [REFERRED TO]
S MILKHA SINGH VS. N K GOPALA KRISHNA MUDALIAR [LAWS(P&H)-1956-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LTD VS. PUNJAB PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CO [LAWS(P&H)-1957-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
HYDERABAD SIND ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-1958-9-22] [REFERRED TO]
UNIVERSAL MARINE AGENCIES VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1977-6-16] [REFERRED TO]
AIR FOAM INDUSTIRES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1973-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
E MOHAN VS. MADRAS FERTILIZERS LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2010-3-624] [RELIED ON]
JETPUR SOMNATH TOLLWAYS LIMITED VS. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-62] [REFERRED TO]
H M P CEMENTS LIMITED SHAHABAD VS. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-1996-7-20] [REFERRED TO]
CHACKO SARAMMA VS. PARAMESWARAN [LAWS(KER)-1967-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. UNIVERSAL MARINE AGENCIES [LAWS(KER)-1979-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
THE GENERAL MANAGER, THE KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED, KARIMNAGAR AND ANOTHER VS. THE A.P. COOPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, AT WARANGAL, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2016-12-33] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KILARU VS. MAYTAS PROPERTIES LIMITED [LAWS(APH)-2012-8-128] [REFERRED TO]
RAM LAL JAIN VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LTD [LAWS(P&H)-1960-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
TOWER VISION INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. PROCALL PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2012-8-480] [REFERRED TO]
M/S GANGOTRI ENTERPRISES LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
THAR CAMPS PVT LTD VS. INDUS RIVER CRUISES PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2021-6-79] [REFERRED TO]
NIMBUS COMMUNICATIONS LTD. VS. PRASAR BHARTI AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
HIRANAND VS. AZAD HIND REFUGEE CO-OPERATIVE STORES LTD [LAWS(RAJ)-1960-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. TARA RANI [LAWS(P&H)-1959-9-18] [REFERRED TO]
KSL AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. NATH SEEDS [LAWS(BOM)-2001-2-103] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA TEXPORT INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. PHAR-EAST LABORATORIES LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2000-1-7] [REFERRED TO]
KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER PRIVATE LTD VS. M V EAGLE EXCELLENCE [LAWS(BOM)-2008-8-248] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [LAWS(DLH)-2020-8-139] [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. MSV INTERNATIONAL INC [LAWS(DLH)-2018-4-178] [REFERRED TO]
SYNDICATE BANK VS. CHANNAVEERAPPA BELERI [LAWS(SC)-2006-4-24] [REFERRED TO]
ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS VS. BUILDWORTH PVT LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2017-7-35] [REFERRED TO]
INTERNATIONAL SEAPORTS (HALDIA) PVT. LIMITED VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2016-3-45] [REFERRED TO]
LANCO INFRATECH LTD. VS. HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-9-133] [REFERRED TO]
JETPUR SOMNATH TOLLWAYS LIMITED VS. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2017-7-132] [REFERRED TO]
SHAPOORJI PALLONJI & CO PVT LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2018-12-105] [REFERRED TO]
INTERTOLL ICS CECONS. O & M CO. PVT. LTD VS. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-2-9] [REFERRED TO]
BHIM SEN VS. SAVITRI DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-1965-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED VS. GANESH DAS R B KIDAR NATH [LAWS(DLH)-1967-3-8] [REFERRED]
GAMMON INDIA LIMITED VS. DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(BOM)-2017-9-147] [REFERRED TO]
SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES VS. SINGLA PROPERTY DEALER LIMITED [LAWS(P&H)-2015-9-406] [REFERRED TO]
BANARSIDAS GUPTA VS. COMMISSIONER, ROHILKHAND DIVISION, BAREILLY AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1976-1-47] [REFERRED TO]
ROSHANLAL VS. MANOHAR LAL [LAWS(DLH)-1999-9-78] [REFERRED]
SANJAY GUPTA VS. KALA WATI [LAWS(DLH)-1999-9-145] [REFERRED]
MARWAR TENT FACTORY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1973-10-4] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THESE three revision applications raise a common question. Applications were made by creditors who allege that they are displaced persons within the meaning of Act 70 of 1951 for damages for breach of contract, and two principal questions arise for my determination. One is whether it is competent to displace persons to maintain an application under this Act in the name of the firm in which they are carrying on business, and the second is whether the Act covers cases of damages for breach of contract.
(2.)TURNING to the first point, it is not disputed that the partners of the firm which has made applications against three debtors in these three applications are displaced persons. But what is urged is that the firm does not satisfy the definition of "displaced person" given in Section 2 (10 ). The definition is: " 'displaced person' means any person who, on account of the setting up of the Dominions of India and Pakistan, or on account of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances in any area now forming part of West Pakistan, has, after the 1st day of March, 1947, left, or been displaced from, his place of residence in such area and who has been subsequently residing in India, and Includes any person who is resident in any place now forming part of India and who for that reason is unable or has been rendered unable to manage, supervise or control any immovable property belonging to him in West Pakistan, but does not include a banking company;" now, what is urged is that this definition by its very nature can only apply to an individual and the Legislature has emphasised the aspect of residence and no other aspect. It would be impossible, it is urged, to suggest that a firm can reside in the sense in which that word is used in this definition. The residence contemplated is a human residence and it cannot apply to an entity like a firm but it can only apply to individuals. In my opinion it is clear that there is no such legal entity as a firm. A firm is merely a compendious way of describing certain number of persons who carry on business as partners in a particular name, but in law and in the eye of the law the firm really I consists of the individual partners who go to constitute that firm. Therefore, the persons before the tribunal are the individual partners of the firm and not a legal entity consisting of the firm. Therefore, if the individual partners of the firm satisfy the definition of "displaced person' given in the Act, I see no reason why such an application cannot be maintained, and as I said before it is not disputed that all the partners of this firm satisfied the definition of "displaced person".
(3.)RELIANCE was placed on a decision of Mr. Justice Pawcett in - 'dharamsey v. Balkrishna pandurang', AIR 1929 Bom 378 (A ). The learned judge there was dealing with the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act and a suit had been filed against a certain firm on the original Side of the High Court, and the firm contended that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit because the partners were agriculturists as defined in the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Belief Act and all the partners resided outside jurisdiction. Mr. Justice Fawcett rejected that contention and he took the view that for the purpose of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Belief Act, although each partner might be an agriculturist, still it did not make the firm which was being sued an agriculturist, and this is what is being strongly relied upon by Mr. Nain. It should be borne in mind that the principal question that the learned Judge had to decide was a question of jurisdiction and in his judgment he particularly relies on the fact that under Order 30, Rule 1, two or more persons claiming or being liable as partners and carrying on business in British India can be sued as a firm, and what the learned Judge points out is that for the purpose of jurisdiction what was to be considered was whether the firm carried on business within jurisdiction and not whether its partners were agriculturists within the meaning of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. In my opinion that decision is not of much help to construe the provisions of the Act which I have before me. That decision is not 'in pari materia' with the question that I have to decide and it turns on a particular provision of Order 30, Rule 1, with which I am not in this case concerned.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.