- (1.) THESE are two applications, one made on behalf of the Trustees for the Port of Calcutta, inter alia - for recall of an order of attachment dated 18/07/1990 and the other on behalf of the award holder by way of execution of the decree passed upon the award by a garnishee attachment of Rs. 3, 21,846.94 out of the moneys held by the State Bank of India, and payment thereof.
(2.) THE award in the instant case was made by an Arbitrator nominated as per agreement between the parties by the President of the Indian Institute of Engineers. THE only point in dispute in both the applications is whether the decree passed upon the award in the name of M/s. J. D. Singh and Co. can at all be put into execution in view of the fact that the same is only a business name of one J. D. Singh who is the proprietor and the sole owner of the said business. Mr. S. P. Majumdar, appearing for the Trustees for the Port of Calcutta, has said that under Order 30, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code a person can be sued in the name of the business that he carries on. However there is no such enabling provision either in the Code of Civil Procedure or anywhere else in the general body of law permitting a person to sue, not in his name but abandoning the same, in the name or style of the business which he adopts for commercial purposes.
(3.) MR. Mujumdar has relied upon the case of Bhagawan v. Hiraji, being a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court reported in AIR 1932 Bombay, page 516. He has placed head-note 'A' thereof and has said that in the said decision it has been laid down that a person trading himself as a firm or in an assumed or trading name may be sued in such name under Order 30, Rule 10 but he cannot sue in that name.;