SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from an order and judgment passed by Ajay K. Basu, J. , dated 1st June 1976 dismissing the suit on an application made by National Insurance Co. , Ltd. under Order 7 Rule 11 of C. P. C. It appears, that a suit was instituted by the plaintiff/appellant against Ruby General Insurance Company Limited. In view of the contentions raised it would be appropriate to set out the description of the defendant in the cause-title which reads as follows:--"ruby General Insurance Company Limited of which the management is vested in the Government of India by the provisions of the General Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Act 17 of 1971 having its registered office at Ruby House at 6, India Exchange Place, Calcutta-1 within the aforesaid jurisdiction. "

( 2 ) THE cause-title indisputably mentions the provisions of General Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Act 17 of 1971. The suit in question was filed on the 18th Sept. 1975. In para 2 of the plaint it has been stated that the defendant, a public limited company carrying on business in General Insurance, was taken over and its management was vested in the Government of India by virtue of the provisions of the General Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Act 17 of 1971 as amended by the General Insurance (Emergency provisions) Amendment Act 27 of 1972. Since then for the purpose of convenience the aforesaid Ruby General Insurance Company Ltd. , thereafter referred to as the 'insurance Company," was functioning and was being managed by Messrs. National Insurance Company and/or was a unit of the latter.

( 3 ) IT appears that the National Insurance Company Limited (Merger) Scheme, 1973 came into force, under Section 1, Sub-section (2), on the 1st of Jan. 1974 and in that scheme, which was published in the Government of India Gazette Extraordinary on the 21st Dec. 1973, there is a definition of the Act which means the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act 1972 and under Section 8a merged company shall on the specified day stand dissolved without winding up. Therefore, the Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. by virtue of the aforesaid provisions has stood dissolved since that date. As we have mentioned before the suit was filed in Sept. 1975. The main point that was urged in this application and which found favour with the learned trial Judge was that the suit being against a dissolved company was an incompetent suit and liable to be dismissed under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11, C. P. C. On behalf of the appellant/plaintiff it was urged that the cause-title clearly indicated that this was a mere misdescription of the defendant. It was emphasised that there was no question of the present applicant being taken by surprise and if it was mis-description the plaint should be allowed to be amended on an oral prayer which was made at the time of hearing of the application before the learned trial Judge. The question, therefore, is whether the description of the defendant in the cause-title was a mere misdescription or was against a dissolved company. It is well settled that a company ceases to exist on dissolution. For this proposition reliance was placed on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Bahadur v. Shanker Lal, where the Supreme Court observed that after a company was dissolved the liquidator could not thereafter claim to represent the company and execute a registered deed of sale. Once the company was dissolved it ceased to exist and the company became a non-existing company.

( 4 ) IN this connection reference was made to the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in the ease of Malhati Tea Syndicate v. Revenue Officer, Jalpaiguri, of the report the Court observed as follows:--"there can be no doubt that on the day en which the appeal was filed, there was no company in existence by the name of Malhati Tea Syndicate Ltd, and the appeal purported to have been filed by a company which was not on the Register o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document