SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1933 Supreme(SC) 61

Privy Council At Ceylon
Sir Lancelot Sanderson, Alness , Justice Lords Thankerton, JJ.
Jonathan Edward David -Appellant
Versus
S.P.A. De Silva -Resopndent
Appeal No. 10 of 1931
Decided On : 28-11-1933

Advocates Appeared:
H.J.P. Hallett, A.W. Elkin, W.H. Upjohn

The central legal point established in the judgment is that the disablement from suing under the ordinance applies to the business for which the plaintiff was required to furnish particulars or notify changes, and the construction in favor of the freedom of the individual should be given effect to.

Headnote:

Registration of Business Names - Interpretation of Ordinance 6 of 1918 - Sections 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 - The court discussed the interpretation of the ordinance for the Registration of Business Names and its application to the plaintiff's case. The key legal provisions discussed include the requirement for registration of business names, furnishing of particulars, consequences of default, and the scope of disablement from suing under the ordinance.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for damages for breach of contract and recovery of sums advanced. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff could not maintain the action due to non-compliance with Ordinance 6 of 1918. The plaintiff's appeal to His Majesty in Council focused on the correct construction of the ordinance and whether the plaintiff was debarred from bringing the action.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plaintiff's default in notifying the Registrar of the change in registered particulars did not deprive him of the right to sue the defendant for the breach of contract related to his timber business. The appeal was allowed, and the decree of the High Court was set aside, restoring the decree of the District Judge.

Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of the ordinance, the requirement for registration and notification of changes in business particulars, and the consequences of default under the ordinance.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disablement from suing under the ordinance applied to the business for which the plaintiff was required to furnish particulars or notify changes, i.e., the accountancy business. The construction in favor of the freedom of the individual was given effect to, and the plaintiff's default did not deprive him of the right to sue the defendant for the breach of contract related to his timber business.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the decree of the High Court was set aside, and the decree of the District Judge was restored. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the appeal.

Sir Lancelot Sanderson:-

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decree of the Supreme Court of Ceylon dated 1st September 1930, which reversed a decree of the District Judge of Colombo dated 20th September 1929, made in favour of the plaintiff. The action was brought by the plaintiff Jonathan Eward David, against the defendant S. P. A. de Silva for damages for breach of a contract dated 10th December 1927 and for the recovery of certain sums advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant. Among other defences the defendant alleged that the plaintiff could not maintain the action because he had not complied with the provisions of Ordinance 6 of 1918, called an ordinance for the Registration of Business Names. All the defences failed in the Trial Court and it was decreed that the defendant should pay to the plaintiff Rs. 10,015 with interest, and the costs of the action, and the defendant's claim in reconvention was dismissed. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, which allowed the appeal on the abovementioned ground, and dismissed the plaintiff's action without prejudice to his right to bring the action afresh if the default be cured. The only question arising on the plaintiff's appeal to His Majesty in Council is whether the construction of the abovementioned ordinance for the Registration of Business Names adopted by the Supreme Court is correct and whether the plaintiff by reason of the said ordinance was debarred from bringing the action. The material portions of the ordinance are as follows:

"Whereas it is expedient to provide for the registration of firms and persons carrying on business under business names and for purposes connected therewith: Be it therefore enacted by the Governor of Ceylon, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council thereof, as follows:

2.-(b) Every individual having a place of business in the Colony and carrying on business under a business name which does not consist of his true full names without any addition, shall be registered in the manner directed by this Ordinance.

4.-(1) Every firm or person required under this Ordinance to be registered shall furnish, by sending by post or delivering to the Registrar at the register office in that part of the Colony in which the principal place of business of the farm or person is situated, a statement in writing in the prescribed form containing the following particulars : (a) The business name (b) The general nature of the business, (c) The principal place of business, (e) Where the registration to be effected is that of an individual, the present name (in full), any former name (m full), the nationality, and if that nationality is not nationality of origin, the nationality of origin, the usual residence, and the other business occupation (if any) of such individual.

7. Whenever a change is made or occurs in any of the particulars registered in respect of any firm or person, such firm or person shall, within fourteen days after such change, or such further period as the registrar may on application allow, furnish, by sending by post or delivery to the Registrar in that part of the Colony in which the aforesaid particulars are registered a statement in writing in the prescribed form specifying the nature and date of the change, signed, and, where necessary, verified, in like manner is the statement required on registration.

8. If any firm or person by this Ordinance required to furnish a statement of particulars or of any change in particulars shall, without reasonable excuse, make default in so doing in the manner and within the time specified by this Ordinance, every partner in the firm or the person so in default shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred rupees for every day during which the default continues, and the Court before which such partner or person shall be tried shall order a statement of the required particulars or change in the particulars to be furnished to the Registrar within such ti



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top