Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1973 Supreme(Raj) 95

JOSHI, BERI
Kusumchand – Appellant
Versus
Kanhaiyalal – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
M.B.L. Bhargava and A. K. Bhandari, for Appellants; D.P. Gupta, for Respondents

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The case discusses that mistaken advice given by a legal practitioner may constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, if bonafide and after consultation of sources. [17019730860004] (!) (!) - The court distinguishes goodwill from Aadat, concluding that the plaintiff’s claim was not for goodwill but for Aadat, and that the evidence did not support a goodwill claim. [17019730860005] (!) (!) (!) - The agreement purportedly involving a payment for goodwill (over standard rent) was found to be opposed to public policy and void under Contract Act Sec. 23, leading to dismissal of the goodwill claim. [17019730860007][17019730860008]

What is the effect of wrong legal advice on delay under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act as discussed in this case?

What is the court’s view on the difference between goodwill and Aadat in the context of a subletting arrangement and its enforceability?

What are the grounds on which the suit for goodwill was dismissed or upheld, particularly in relation to public policy under Sec. 23 of the Contract Act?

BERI, C.J.—This is a defendants special appeal directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated July 25, 1967, whereby he accepted the plain-tiffs case and granted a decree.

2. The brief facts which deserve to be recalled for the disposal of this appeal are that Gulabchand carried on business in the name and style of Gulabchand Malpani at Mumbadevi, Bombay, which locality is reputed as a business centre for jewellery. Gulabchand was a tenant of two rooms owned by Amba Laxmi Narain Gundeli on a monthly rent of Rs. 35/- apart from municipal tax of Rs. 6/5/- for every half year. In Smt. year 2001, Gulabchand says, he sublet these rooms to the defendants firm carrying business in the name of Chhaganlal Kantilal. It was agreed that besides the payment of rent to the landlord Chhaganlal would pay a sum of Rs. 700/- per annum to the plaintiff on account of goodwill. Up to the year 2004 and a part of Smt. year 2055 Chhaganlal kept his promise and paid the amount but thereafter the neglected to do so. The plaintiff, therefore, instituted a suit in the court of the Civil Judge, Jaipur District on May 28, 1953 against Kantilal, proprietor of Firm Chhaganlal Kantilal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1973 Supreme(Raj) 95

JOSHI, BERIKusumchand – AppellantVersusKanhaiyalal – Respondent

What is the effect of wrong legal advice on delay under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act as discussed in this case?

What is the court’s view on the difference between goodwill and Aadat in the context of a subletting arrangement and its enforceability?

What are the grounds on which the suit for goodwill was dismissed or upheld, particularly in relation to public policy under Sec. 23 of the Contract Act?

Cases Referred (2)

JOSHI, BERI
Kusumchand – Appellant
Versus
Kanhaiyalal – Respondent