TMI Blog1979 (8) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppearance, filed a written statement and contended inter alia that the said Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. On the objection so taken, an issue was framed and was eventually decided in favour of the defendant petitioner. The learned Judge having found that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the suit, by his order dated July 1, 1976 directed the plaint to be returned for being presented to the proper Court under Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. Thereupon the plaint was refiled in the 1st Court of the learned Subordinate Judge at Alipore and was numbered as Money Suit No. 20 of 1976. 3. While the suit was proceeding in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, on the prayer of the defendant petitioner, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dment and declined to dismiss the suit as the plaintiff had in the mean time made the discovery. In allowing the application for amendment, the learned Judge observed that in view of S. 23(1) of the Companies Act the suit should be allowed to proceed in the new name of the company and that the amendment would neither change the character of the suit nor cause any prejudice to the defendant. Their is the order under challenge before us. Although by the said order, the learned Judge disposed of two applications-one by the defendant-petitioner and the other by the plaintiff-opposite party, Mr. Sen appearing in support of the Rule challenged only that part of the order by which the amendment of the plaint was allowed. 6. The only point urged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etective any legal proceedings by or against it; and any legal proceeding which might have been continued or commenced by or against the company by its former name may be continued by or against the company by its new name. 9. To recapitulate the facts ones again it may be recalled that the name of the company was Bata Shoe Company Private Ltd. when the suit in the City Civil Court was instituted in 1971. The Resolution changing the name was passed on 7.4.1973, and the certificate of incorporation was issued on 23.4.1973 The plaint after being returned by the City Civil Court was presented in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore in July, 1976. The application for amendment was made on August 29, 1977. 10. Had the plaintif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13. The ratio of these decisions is that a suit by or against a company in its former name is not competent in the sense that a company may sue or be sued only in the name entered in the Register of Joint Stock Companies and in accordance with the provisions of Order 29 of the Code. The question whether a proceeding wrongly instituted in the former name of the company really amounts to a merely misdescription so far as the name is concerned and therefore liable to be corrected was never considered in any of these decisions. The decisions do not indicate that such prayes were made but rejected. 14. The other case referred to Kalipada Sinha v. Mahalaxmi Bank Ltd. Opposite Party. 1966 Cal. 595) is not really of any ???. There the proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Amulakchand v. Babulal (A 1933 Bombay 304) a similar question arose for determination. There the suit was instituted by Amulakchand Mewaram, a firm of merchants. Subsequently it was appreciated that the ??? was not a partnership firm but is the name of a joint Hindu family and it was proposed to amend the plaint by substituting the names of the members of the joint family in place of the name of the family firm. In view however of the reluctance of the plaintiff to agree to pay costs to the defendant consequent upon such amendment, the matter was not ultimately proceeded with. In appeal, the plaintiff asked for leave to amended and the prayer was allowed upon a finding that the firm in whose name the suit was originally brought did not co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rect name, A limited company has in my judgment characteristics other than its name by reference to which it can be identified: for example, a particular business particular place or places where it carries on business, particular share holders and particular directors. If judged by these tests a company is correctly identifiable, a mere error in the name would be inconsequential and would not render a suit instituted by such a company in a wrong name entirely incompetent. In the instant case before us there is no difficulty in identifying the company. The reference to the company by its former name, namely Bata Shoe Company Private Ltd. was a mere misdescription and should be allowed to be corrected by way of amendment. In s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
