Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 998
High Court of Delhi
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
Ram Babu Gupta
Versus
M/s. Aditya Birla Group & Another
CS(OS) No. 632 of 2013
Decided on : 31-03-2014
For the Plaintiff :Rajesh Rai, Advocate with in person.
For the Defendants :Navin Chawla, Advocate.
A person carrying on business under a name other than his own can be sued in such name, as per Order XXX Rule 10 of CPC.
Headnote:
Aditya Birla Group - Illegal Termination of Employment - Order XXX Rule 10 of CPC - 10. Suit against person carrying on business in name other than his own - The court discussed the provisions of Order XXX Rule 10 of CPC and held that if a person carries on business under a name other than his own, he can be sued in such name. The court referred to the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in RAJENDRA PRASAD OIL MILLS CASE and held that the Defendant can be sued in the assumed name even if it is not a juristic person.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of damages for illegal termination of employment against Aditya Birla Group. The Defendant objected that it was not a legal entity and cannot be sued in such name.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was maintainable against Aditya Birla Group as it carries on business under an assumed name and represents to the public that there is an entity by the name of Aditya Birla Group.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suit was maintainable against Aditya Birla Group as it was not a legal entity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the provisions of Order XXX Rule 10 of CPC and relied on the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in RAJENDRA PRASAD OIL MILLS CASE to decide that the Defendant can be sued in the assumed name even if it is not a juristic person.
Final Decision: The court decided in favor of the Plaintiff and held that the suit was maintainable against Aditya Birla Group.
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
1. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 50,00,000/- as damages for illegal termination of employment, arrears of salary, etc. The suit had originally been filed only against M/s. Aditya Birla Group.
2. The contention of the Plaintiff is that the interview for the appointment of the Plaintiff was conducted by Mr. Arun Guar and the Plaintiff was appointed by the Defendant with a subsidiary company of the Defendant M/s. Liaoning Birla Carbon Co. Ltd. at China. As per the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated and accordingly suffered a loss. The Plaintiff thus filed the present suit.
3. The Defendant has not filed any written statement. The counsel appearing for the Defendant has taken an objection that the Defendant Aditya Birla Group is not a legal entity and as such, cannot be sued in such name and form. As per the Defendant, Aditya Birla Group contains about 50 companies and the relevant company M/s. Liaoning Birla Carbon Co. Ltd. had not been arrayed as a party.
4. By the order of 22.11.2013, M/s. Liaoning Birla Carbon Co. Ltd. was impleaded as the Defendant No. 2 and the matter was set down for hearing on the question whether the suit would be maintainable against the Defendant No. 1 i.e. Aditya Birla Group.
5. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff had given an interview before an officer of the Defendant Aditya Birla Group and, accordingly, he was appointed by the Defendant Aditya Birla Group and was placed in one of its subsidiary companies.
6. He further submitted that in the Aditya Birla Group, the selection process is normally conducted by the Defendant Aditya Birla Group and after the selection of an individual, the person is placed in one of the subsidiary companies. In the present case also, the interview of the Plaintiff was conducted by an officer who claimed himself to be an officer of the Defendant Aditya Birla Group. The Plaintiff had been selected by the Defendant Aditya Birla Group and was placed with M/s. Liaoning Birla Carbon Co. Ltd. The interview was conducted in Delhi in the office of one of the subsidiary companies of M/s Aditya Birla Group.
7. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that in view of Order XXX Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure since the Defendant Aditya Birla Group was carrying on business under the name and style of Aditya Birla Group, the Defendant Aditya Birla Group can be sued in such name.
8. Learned counsel for the Defendant No. 1 Aditya Birla Group submitted that there was no such legal entity as Aditya Birla Group and as such, the suit was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the Defendant No. 1 further submitted that the Plaintiff was well aware that he had been placed in the company M/s. Liaoning Birla Carbon Co. Ltd. and as such, being aware of the entity in which the Plaintiff had been appointed to, the suit in the name of Aditya Birla Group was not maintainable.
9. Order XXX Rule 10 of CPC lays down as under:
10. Suit against person carrying on business in name other than his own Any person carrying on business in a name or style other than his own name, or a Hindu undivided family carrying on business under any name, may be sued in such name or style as if it were a firm name, and, in so far as the nature of such case permits, all rules under this Order shall apply accordingly.
10. Order XXX Rule 10 stipulates that if any person carries on business under the name and style other than his own name, then that person can be sued in such name or style as if it were a firm name. What is relevant to be considered in the present case is whether the Defendant Aditya Birla Group ever represented to the Plaintiff or to the public that there is an entity by the name of Aditya Birla Group. If the Defendant Aditya Birla Group was trading or carrying on business or representing to people that there was an entity by the name of Aditya Birla Group then it could be sued in such name. If ther
