a suit may be filed and a decree may be obtained against a firm under 0.
The firm name of Jagatsons International Corporation applies as much to the Maharaja of Sirmur as to the other partners.
1,96,831 58 N.P. The suit was instituted on the allegation that respondent No.
1 and the firm had entered into an agreement in writing dated September 26, 1956, whereby respondent No.
When respondent No.
The firm companymitted defaults in payment of the instalments payable under the decree.
The opposite parties to the application filed an affidavit alleging 1 that the suit and all proceedings therein were incompetent in the absence of the requisite companysent of the Central Government under s. 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure 2 Jagat Pershad and Shib Chander Kumar entered into the agreement dated September 26, 1956 and utilised the moneys received under it in fraud of the other partners and without their authority, Shib Chander Kumar dishonestly and fraudulently companycealed from the other partners the fact of the institution of the suit and without the authority and knowledge of the other partners submitted to a companysent decree in the suit.,
On December 13, 1957.
On July 15, 1957, at the hearing of the summons for judgment taken out by respondent No.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated November 21, 1958 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
21, r. 50 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
1 sued the firm of Jagatsons International Corporation, it sued the Maharaja of Sirmnur and all the other partners as if the plaint had set out their names, and the decree passed in the suit is in reality a decree against all the partners of the firm including the Maharaja of Sirmur.
6 Praduman Kumar and 7 Dayawati Rani claiming that respondent No.
1.89,643.98 N.P. and further interest, and directed that the decretal amount would be payable in certain instalments.
21 r. 50 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to execute the decree against Maharani Mandalsa Kumari Debi, 2 Maharani Premlata Debi, 3 Maiyan Sahiba Sheba Kumari Debi, 4 Major Rao Raja Sirendra Singh, 5 Jagat Pershad.
though in form against the firm, is in effect a decree against all the partners.
The companysent of the Central Government to the institution of the suit was number obtained, though the Maharaja of Sirmur is a Ruler of the former Indian State within the meaning of s. 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The appellants number appeal to this Court under a certificate granted by the High Court.
The summons of the suit was served oil Shib Chander Kumar as a partner of the firm and as a person having the companytrol or management of the partnership business.
By an order dated March 18, 1958, a learned single Judge of the High Court rejected all the companytentions in the affidavit, and allowed the application under 0.
31 of 1958.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1, the firm admitted its liability as claimed in the plaint and applied for installments, and the Court passed a decree for Rs.
4 1919 A.C. 59.
Now, the Maharaja of Sirmur is the Ruler of a former Indian State, and s. 86 read with s. 87 B of the Code of Civil Procedure barred the institution of a suit against him except with the companysent of the Central Government.
1 agreed to provide finance to the firm, as a result of the dealings under the agreement a sum of Rs.
130 of 1964.
1,96,831.58 N.P. was due to respondent No.
S. Pathak, S. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, for respon dent No.
162 of 1957 against Messrs. Jagatsons International Corporation on the Orginal Side of the Bombay High Court claiming a money decree for Rs.
1 was entitled to cause the decree to be executed against them as being partners in the firm.
1 filed an application under 0.
In Lovell Christmas v. Beauchamp 2 Lord Herschell, L. C. said Although the judgment may be pronounced against the firm in the firms name, it is in reality a judgment against all the persons who are in fact members of the firm and it is because such a judgment exists that the right of execution follows.
1 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J. Maharaja Sir Rajendra Prakash Bahadur Maharaja of Sirmur, Maharani Mandalsa Kumari Debi Rajmata of Sirmur, Maharani Premlata Debi of Chhota Udaipur, Maiyan Sahiba Sheba Kumari Debi of Jharipani, Major Rao Raja Sirendra Singh, Jagat Pershad, Shib Chander Kumar, Praduman Kumar and Dayawati Rani carried on business in companypartnership under the firm name and style of Messrs. Jagatsons International Corporation hereinafter referred to as the firm at New Delhi.
N. Mukherjee, for the appellants.
The appellate Court held that 1 though the decree against the firm was a decree against all its partners including the Maharaja of Sirmur, and though the decree against the Maharaja of Sirmur might be a nullity, the decree against the other partners of the firm was valid, and 2 the appellants were number entitled to raise other defences to the merits of the claim on an application under 0.
a suit against all the partners of the firm.
1 from the firm, and in view of the breaches of the agreement by the firm, the agreement has stood terminated.
Respondent No.
respondent No.
An appeal preferred by appellants, Maharani Mandalsa Kumari Debi, Maharani Premlata Debi, Major Rao Raja Sirendra Singh and Maiyan Sahiba Sheba Kumari Debi was dismissed by a Bench,of the High Court on November 21, 1958.
1, Ramnarain Private Ltd. instituted Summary Suit No.
