Allowed

Canara Bank v. Mr Subramanian C

DRAT17 Apr 2025REGULAR APPEAL/23/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed the appellant Bank's appeal, setting aside the impugned order of the DRT which dismissed an objection application due to allegedly incorrect party naming. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent to clarify that a proprietorship firm cannot sue or be sued in its own name but must be prosecuted in the name of the proprietor, correcting the procedu

What did the court decide?

Retrieval of OA No.12/2017 from DRT-III; direction to dispose on merits after impleading new respondents.

Canara Bank versus Mr Subramanian C — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 17^th of April, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Chandrasekharan CHAIRPERSON

¶4

RA 23/2022

¶5

(SA 12/2017, on the file of DRT- III, Chennai)

¶6

Between

¶7

CANARA BANK, Formerly SYNDICATE BANK, Mogappair Branch, Rep., by its Branch Manager. No.4/749, Mogappair Main Road, Mogappair West, Chennai-600 037.

¶8

Now No.128, VGP Nagar, Vellalar Street, Mogappair, Chennai-600 037.

¶9

… Appellant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

Mr.C.SUBRAMANIAN(deceased), S/o.A.Chinnakulandai,

¶12

Prop of M/s.MULTIPRODUCT INDUSTRIES CORPORATION No.1/368, Kalamegam Salai, Mogappair West, Chennai-600 037.

¶13

Mrs. S.THAVAMANI, W/o. Late.C.Subramanian, No.1/368, Kalamegam Salai, Mogappair West, Chennai-600 037.

¶14

¶15

1. Mrs.S.SUPRIYA,

¶16

D/o.late.C.Subramanian,

¶17

W/o.Raghuvaran, No.1/368, Kalamegam Salai, Mogappair West, Chennai-600 037.

¶18

4)Mrs.S.YOGALAKSHMI,

¶19

D/o.Late.C.Subramanian, W/o.Rajkumar, No.14, Mt.Patel Road, Nerkundram, Metukuppam, Chennai-600 107.

¶20

Mr.S.SARAVANAKUMAR, S/o.late.C.Subramanian, No.1/368, Kalamegam Salai, Mogappair West, Chennai-600 037.

¶21

Counsel for Appellant Bank : Mr. N. C. Radhakrishnan for M/s. P. Sreenivasulu Counsel for Respondent : Remained ex parte

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Heard Learned Counsel for Appellant Bank.

¶25

Respondents 2 to 5 remained ex parte .

¶26

This Appeal is against the order in OA 12/2017 of DRTIII, Chennai, dismissing the OA on the ground that name of constituent of applicant bank is not arrayed as a party to the proceedings.

¶27

It is seen from the records that OA 12/2017 was filed by Canara Bank (formerly Syndicate Bank) against Respondent Mr. C. Subramanian, proprietor of M/s. Multiproduct Industries Corporation. This Tribunal is not able to understand as why this OA has to be dismissed stating that name of constituent of applicant bank is not arrayed as a party to the proceedings. This is ex facie wrong and liable to be set aside.

¶28

¶29

After filing this Appeal, due to death of the Respondent

¶30

C. Subramanian, his LRs are impleaded as Respondents 2 to 5 in the Appeal.

¶31

Probably Learned Presiding Officer meant to say that M/s. Multiproduct Industries Corporation is represented by Proprietor, instead of stating so, the cause title of OA reads that Mr. C. Subramanian, Proprietor of M/s. Multiproduct Industries Corporation. It is pertinent to refer to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rasiklal Manickchand Dhariwal & Anr. Vs. M/s. M.S.S. Food Products, in Civil Appeal No. 10112/2011(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 27180 of 2008), wherein it is held as follows:-

¶32

Learned senior counsel for the appellants also submitted that the suit was not maintainableunder Order XXX Rule 10 of the Code having been filed in the name of the proprietorship firm--M/s. M.S.S. Food Products. Relying upon a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Bhagvan Manaji Marwadi & Ors. v. Hiraji Premaji

¶33

¶34

Marwadi12, it was urged that a proprietorship firm cannot sue in its name.

¶35

Rule 10 of Order XXX of the Code reads as follows : "10. Suit against person carrying on business in name other than his own.--Any person carrying on business in a name or style other than his own name, or a Hindu undivided family carrying on business under any name, may be sued in such name or style as if it were a firm name, and, in so far as the nature of such case permits, all rules under this Order shall apply accordingly."

¶36

61. The above provision is an enabling provision which provides that a person carrying on businessin a name or style other than his own name may be sued in such name or style as if it were a firm name. As a necessary corollary, the said provision does not enable a person carrying on business in a name or style other than in his own name to sue in such name or style.

¶37

¶38

62. The plaint filed by the plaintiff describes the title of the plaintiff as follows:

¶39

12 AIR 1932 Bom 516 "Messrs. M.S.S. Food Products, Plot No. D, Sector-E, Sanver Road Industrial Area, Indore, Through - Proprietor - Nilesh Vadhwani, Son of Shri Ashok Vadhwani, aged 27 years, Occupation - Business."

¶40

63. The above description of the plaintiff in the plaint at best may be called to be not in proper orderinasmuch as the name of Nilesh Vadhwani must have preceded the business name in the cause title. This is not an illegality which goes to the root of the matter………..”

¶41

The proprietorship firm is not a separate legal entity, and therefore, cannot sue or be sued on its own name. There is no distinction between the owner and the business entity. The owner of a proprietorship is the actual party in any legal

¶42

proceedings involving the business. Thus, the order passed by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai, is not correct and is set aside.

¶43

¶44

Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai, is directed

¶45

to restore OA No.12/2017 to file and dispose of the OA, on merits and in accordance with law after providing opportunity to the newly impleaded Respondents.

¶46

Accordingly, R.A:23/2022 is allowed with no order as to costs. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶47

[Dictated to Athistamani, PS, in open court, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me this 17^th of April, 2025]

¶48

[ Justice G. Chandrasekharan] CHAIRPERSON

¶49

Canara Bank v. Mr Subramanian C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Mr Subramanian C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/s. Marg Limited & Ors. versus Indian Bank & Ors.

C Durai Son of Chidambaram versus Punjab National Bank

M S Sri Peachiamman Enterprises versus City Union Bank Limited

Indain bank versus M s Mahadevan enterprises and Ors.

Benefit Entertainments (India) Ltd. versus The Mangalore Catholic Co-operative Bank Limited

M S Benefit Filmcity Idnia Ltd. versus The Mangalore Catholic Co-operative Bank Limited