Allowed

Canbank Factores Ltd., v. The Official Liquidator

Madras HC15 Apr 2021A/1594/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed an application to amend the plaint. Granted correction of the 8th defendant's name details and consequential identification of the original company in reference to the 1st defendant post-liquidation.

What did the court decide?

Application to amend the plaint by correcting the name details of the 8th defendant and identifying the original company as 1st defendant stands allowed.

Canbank Factores Ltd., Vs The Official Liquidator — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

A.No.1594 of 2021 in C.S.No.334 of 2014

¶2

A.No.1594 of 2021 in

¶3

C.S.No.334 of 2014

¶4

R.SUBRAMANIAN.J.,

¶5

This application has been filed seeking to amend the plaint by

¶6

deleting the name of the 8^th defendant as Mr.Sujini Kakamanu S/o. K.Sudharshan and substituting Ms.Sujini Kakamanu D/o.K. Sudharshan

¶7

in the short cause title and long cause title of the plaint.

¶8

2. This application is actually an application for amendment of the plaint to correct the mis-description of the 8^th defendant as “S/o.K.Sudharshan” instead of “D/o.K.Sudharshan” and to replace the prefix “Mr.” by “Ms.”

¶9

3. Mr.Anand Sasidharan, learned counsel appearing for the defendants 7 and 8 would have no objection for this application being allowed.

¶10

4. Hence, the first prayer sought for to amend the name of the 8^th defendant stands allowed.

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶12

Page No.1/4

¶13

A.No.1594 of 2021 in C.S.No.334 of 2014

¶14

5. As regards the second prayer, it is the claim of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the suit was originally filed against one M/s.Pioneer Alloys Castings Limited. Upon realising that the said Company went in liquidation, the plaintiff has sought for substituting the Official Liquidator, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as 1^st defendant. The said amendment sought for in A.No.7997 of 2014 was allowed on 09.02.2015. The plaintiff however did not seek for consequential amendments in the body of the plaint.

¶15

6. During the cross examination, it appears that certain questions were put to the plaintiff witness regarding the mis-description and the witness was questioned as to who would be the actual 1^st defendant in the suit. Realising the mistake, the present application has been filed seeking to substitute the word “original 1^st defendant viz., M/s.Pioneer Alloys Castings Limited” instead of “1^st defendant” in all the places in

¶16

the plaint in C.S.No.334 of 2014 wherever the term 1^st defendant appears.

¶17

7. Mr.Anand Sasidharan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 7 and 8 contended that the application itself is misconceived and has been taken out to fill up the lacunae.

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶19

Page No.2/4

¶20

A.No.1594 of 2021 in C.S.No.334 of 2014

¶21

8. I do not see any justification in the opposition of the learned counsel for the respondents 7 and 8. Admittedly, the 1^st defendant is a Limited Company that has gone into liquidation. Therefore, the Official Liquidator was substituted as 1^st defendant. Consequential amendments should have been sought for even at the time when the Official Liquidator was substituted instead of the original 1^st defendant. I therefore find that this application should be allowed and the same is allowed .

¶22

9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff to carryout amendment and file necessary amended plaint by 26.04.2021. Needless to state that the defendants have right to file additional written statement if so advised.

¶23

10. Post the suit on 27.04.2021.

¶24

15.04.2021

¶25

dsa

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶27

Page No.3/4

¶28

A.No.1594 of 2021 in C.S.No.334 of 2014

¶29

R.SUBRAMANIAN.J.,

¶30

dsa

¶31

A.No.1594 of 2021
in
C.S.No.334 of 2014
15.04.2021
1/3

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶33

Page No.4/4

Canbank Factores Ltd., v. The Official Liquidator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canbank Factores Ltd., v. The Official Liquidator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.v.Srinivasa, S/o.P.G.Venkatachala Setty, Vs The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras

Canara Bank, Debenture Trustee Department, Rep.by its Senior Manager Vs M/s/.Vijaykumar Mills Limited, (in Liquidation)

Airports Authority of India Vs M/S.Skyline Nepc Limited

Canbank Factores Ltd., Vs The Official Liquidator

Canbank Factores Ltd., Vs The Official Liquidator

K.Jamuna Vs S.Pushpavathi