1933 [IN THE PRIVY COUNCIL.]

Present: Lord Thankerton, Lord Alness, and Sir Lancelot Sanderson.

DAVID v. DE SILVA.

Business names' registration-New business in own name after registration- Failure to notify change of particulars-Action on contract with respect to new business-Ordinance No. 6 of 1918, ss. 7 and 9.

Where a person, who registered himself under the Registration of Business Names Ordinance as carrying on in a business name a specified business, commenced, after the registration, in his own name a separate business, the particulars of which he failed to notify as required by section 7 of the Ordinance indicating that there has been a change in the registered particulars,-

Held, that he was not precluded from suing on a contract made by him in respect of the new business which he was carrying on in his own name.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Supreme Court.

November 28, 1933. Delivered by SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON.-

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decree of the Supreme Court of Ceylon dated September 1, 1930, which reversed a decree of the District Judge of Colombo dated September 20, 1929, made in favour of the plaintiff.

The action was brought by the plaintiff Jonathan Edward David against the defendant S. P. A. de Silva for damages for breach of a contract dated December 10, 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 No. 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 above-mentioned 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 above-mentioned 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.

"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 firm 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 (in full), the nationality, and if that nationality is not the 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