HORMUS ARDESHAR KANDAWALA Vs. ARDESHAR COWASHJI DUSTOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this suit the plaintiff, who carries on business as "Bombay Dyeing and Cleaning Company," seeks to restrain the defendant from carrying on business as "Bombay Art Dyers and Cleaners," and claims damages. The following issues were raised: (1) Is the plaintiff's business the "Bombay Dyeing and Cleaning Company" known to the public as the "Bombay Art Dyers and Cleaners? (2) Has the plaintiff acquired the sole right to the use of the word "Bombay" in connexion with the dyeing and cleaning business or is it common in the trade? (3) Has the defendant lawfully adopted the name of the Bombay Art Dyers and Cleaners" and is he entitled to use the name? (4) Has the plaintiff suffered any damages as alleged in para. 7 of the plaint? Is he entitled to any account of the profits made by the defendant?

(2.) The undisputed facts are that, in 1907, the plaintiff started a business as a dyer and cleaner at No. 1, Lindsay Street, on the ground floor, under the name of H. Ardeshar & Co. In 1908, he changed the name of the business to "Bombay Dyeing and Cleaning Co." At first the defendant financed the business to some extent. In 1912 the plaintiff went to England for special training as a dyer and cleaner. In May 1932 the plaintiff removed his business to No. 10, Chowringhee, and, for some five years before that date, he had occupied the first floor of No. 1, Linesay Street, as his business premises. In June 1932, the defendant filed a suit against the plaintiff for partnership accounts and obtained the appointment of a receiver. On 8 June 1932, this suit was settled and a consent decree passed, according to which the defendant was to receive Rs. 4,000 and the plaintiff was declared to be entitled to the goodwill and other assets of the business of the Bombay Dyeing and Cleaning Co."

(3.) In August 1932, the defendant became a tenant of the first floor of No. 1, Lindsay Street, and started a business of dyers and cleaners under the style of "Bombay Art Dyers and Cleaners." This suit was filed on 17 March 1933, and, on an application for an ad interim injunction, an order was passed restraining the defendant from representing himself as a late partner in the plaintiff's business and the defendant was ordered to keep an account of his profits. I was informed that the question as to the ad interim injunction in respect of the use of the name Bombay Art Dyers and Cleaners" was not considered, as the defendant said that he would be ready for the hearing of a suit in seven days time. In the plaint, the plaintiff claimed that his business was known to the public by six different names. This was based on the fact that he had received letters addressed in these six different names.