Singh v Bhasker and Company (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1956)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
A single person carrying on business under a name other than his own has no right to sue in the business name. The suit must be instituted in the individual's own name, trading as the business. Order 29 rules 1 and 9 of the Civil Procedure rules do not permit an individual to sue in a business name.
Outcome
Respondent's suit dismissed for lack of capacity to sue in business name
Facts
The respondent instituted suit in the Resident Magistrate's Court in the name "Bhasker and Company". The Resident Magistrate ruled that Order 29 rules 1 and 9 of the Civil Procedure rules permitted an individual to sue in a business name. The appellant challenged this ruling on appeal, arguing that a sole proprietor cannot sue in a business name but must sue in his own name trading as the business.
Issues
- Whether a sole proprietor carrying on business under a business name has the right to institute proceedings in that business name rather than in his own name.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Judgment of the Resident Magistrate's Court set aside.
- Respondent's suit dismissed.
- Costs awarded to appellant here and below.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (2)
- Civil Procedure Order 29 rule 1
- Civil Procedure Order 29 rule 9
Cases cited (2)
- George and Company v Pritam's Auto Service (Civil Case No. 1804 of 1953)
- Velji Arjan Patel v National Contractors (1954) 21 EACA 39
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.