Back
G. R. SWAMINATHAN
T. M. International duly – Appellant
Versus
Meena Garments duly – Respondent
ORDER :
(G.R. Swaminathan, J.)
1. Heard both sides.
2. The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.119 of 2018 on the file of Principal District Judge, Karur. The suit was instituted in the name of Meena Garments duly represented by its Proprietor K.Sivanandapathi. I.A.No.06 of 2024 was filed for amending the plaint as follows:
2. In the Long Cause Title, modify the plaintiff's description Meena Garments duly represented by its Proprietor K.Sivanandapathi S/o.Kanagasabapathi as K.Sivanandapathi S/o.Kanagasabapathi, Proprietor M/s.Meena Garments, Hindu, aged about 46 years, having office at 31/6, Vaiyapuri Nagar 1st Cross, Karur - 639 002.
3. In the Short Cause Title & in the Docket, modify the defendant's description of M/s.T.M.International duly represented by its Proprietrix M.Thenmozhi as M.Thenmozhi W/o.MeenakshiSundaram Proprietor M/s.T.M.International
4. In the Long Cause Title, modify the defendant's description of M/s.T.M.International
A proprietary concern cannot sue in its own name but can be represented by its proprietor; amendments to correct party descriptions are permissible.
A proprietor of a proprietary concern can file a complaint as the payee under Section 138 of the N.I Act.
Proprietorship Concern is not a juristic person – It cannot sue but it can be sued – Whether Proprietorship Concern is sued in its name or through its proprietor representing the Concern is one of sa....
A suit against a proprietorship concern is maintainable, and technical defects in naming parties should not defeat substantive rights.
A sole proprietorship cannot be prosecuted under Section 141 of the N.I. Act unless the proprietor is named in the complaint; the complaint was also quashed for being premature.
A sole proprietorship concern and the proprietor are one and the same and cannot be treated as separate juristic entities under the RERA Act, 2016.
The amendments sought to the plaint were imperative for proper adjudication of the case and did not fundamentally change the nature of the case. The Court emphasized the applicability of Order XXX Ru....
Substitution of a plaintiff after limitation has expired is valid only from the date of substitution, not retrospectively.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
