Arunachalam Chettiar V. Ramanathan Chettiar

1935   Present: Dalton S.P.J. and Koch J.

ARUNACHALAM CHETTIAR v. RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR.

235-D. C. Colombo, 2,767.

Registration of Business Names-Person carrying on two businesses-Application for registration-filling in particulars-Failure to denote any other business occupation-Meaning of expression business occupation-Application for registration by attorney on behalf of principal outside Ceylon-Ordinance No. 6 of 1918, ss. 4 (.1) (e), 4 (2), and 5.

Plaintiff carried on the business of a money lender, rice merchant, and copra merchant under one vilasam and the business of a rice merchant under another vilasam.

He registered both business names and in registering the business under the former vilasam filled in the particulars required by section 4 (1) (e) of "any other business occupation" as "nil ".

Held, that he had not failed to comply with requirements of section 4 (1) (e) of the Ordinance.

Held, further, that under section 4 (2) of the Ordinance there was no requirement that the plaintiff should set out the business carried on under the latter vilasam as it was a separate and distinct business.

The statement required under section 5 for the purposes of registration may be signed by the attorney of a person who is carrying on business in Ceylon but who is resident outside the Island.

THE plaintiff was a Chetty resident in South India and carrying on business in Ceylon through local agents in Colombo. He claimed as carrying on business in Colombo under, the business designation or vilasam of R. M. A. R. A. R. R. M. Arunachalam Chettiar to recover from the defendants the sum of Rs. 55,870.50 on a mortgage bond.

It would appear that plaintiff carried on the business of money lender, copra and rice merchant under the above-mentioned vilasam, and the business of rice merchant only under a separate vilasam, viz., A. R. A. R. R. M. He registered both businesses under the Business Names Registration Ordinance. The particulars supplied under the provisions of section 4 of the Ordinance for the business R. M. A. R. A. R. R. M. were set out in the form (exhibit D 1), which was signed by the plaintiff's attorney.

Paragraph 11 of the form is based on the requirements of section 4 (1) (a) of the Ordinance which requires the applicant, when an individual, to set out any other business occupation he may have. Against this the word " nil" was inserted. It was contended on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff should have stated that he had another business occupation, viz., the business of A. R. A. R. R. M.

The learned District Judge held that the failure to furnish the particulars required by section 4 was a default within the meaning of section 9 and dismissed the plaintiff's action.

Hayley, K.C. (with him N. Nadaraja and S. J. V. Chelvanayagam), for plaintiff, appellant.-Plaintiff traded under two names or vilasams. He sent his application for the registration of his business names in two documents, D 1 and D 2. Under heading 11 " other business occupations

of the applicant" plaintiff had entered " nil". Subsequently plaintiff had sent amended applications (in forms P 3 and P 4) which supplied the omission. The Registrar would not entertain the amended applications except as applications to register a change of business. The learned District Judge held with the defendant that plaintiff had made default in terms of section 9 in not giving information of his other business occupation which he was required to do in paragraph 11 of the form, and also on the ground that the forms were signed by the plaintiff's attorney which he was not empowered to do by section 19.

My submission is that there is no default. For if there was it was sufficiently cured by the later documents P 3 and P 4 which were duly submitted to the Registrar before action was filed. If he had any other business occupation he had to state it. He has given all

Click Here to Read the rest of this document