TARAPADA MAJUMDAR Vs. K B GHOSH AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by defendant No. 1 K. B. Ghosh and Co. a firm carrying on business and having its office at 6, Old Post Office Street, Calcutta in Suit No. 510 of 1977 asking that the suit against the applicant, K. B. Ghosh and Co. be dismissed, the name of M/s. K. B. Ghosh and Co. be deleted from the cause title of the plaint and the plaint be amended by deleting or striking out the allegations against K. B. Ghosh and Co. It appears that there was a partnership firm under the name and style of Calcutta Decorators of which Purna Roy Chowdhury, Smt. Mallika Roy Chowdhury, one Amit Roy Chowdhury and Ajit Kumar Roy Chowdhury, who are defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the present suit, were the partners. There were certain disputes and there was a reference to arbitration and the arbitrators were one Tarapado Majumdar and Pari-mal Kumar Roy Chowdhury. In respect of the said arbitration proceedings, the defendant No. 1, K. B. Ghosh and Co. wrote a letter to Sri Tarapado Majumdar, who was one of the arbitrators on the 19th July, 1977 which contained, Inter alia, the following allegations:

(2.) IN this application the applicants have stated that the letter in question was written by the applicants under instructions from their clients and the applicants did not personally know the plaintiff. The petitioners had further affirmed that the statements contained in the said letter were based on informations derived from defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and the petitioners had no personal knowledge of the allegations contained therein. It is further the case of the petitioners that the said letter was written under instructions received from defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and in discharge of the duties as Advocates. It is further mentioned by the petitioners that the petitioners had never seen the plaintiff. The petitioners alleged that they were never personally acquainted with the plaintiff and never heard of the plaintiff prior to the receipt of the instructions from defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in connection with the disputes with Sri Ajit Kumar Roy Chowdhury regarding the firm, Calcutta Decorators. The petitioners have no grievance or enmity with the plaintiff.

(3.) BEFORE I deal with this point, I may notice the relevant authorities both in England and in India on this subject of the matter. In Cordery on Solicitors 15th Edition, page 39 it has been observed as follows: