LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Bryan   13 May 2023

Case filed against wrong company, can such court order be executed?

Case filed against ABC ENG. CORPORATION PVT LTD and its Directors whereas offical name of the Company is ABC ENG. PVY LTD. & its Directors.

Court Judgement issued against ABC CORPORATION PVT LTD and its Directors. Court Order EXECUTED by the Petitioner.

(1)  Can the Company claim that since the case was filed against a wrong entity (ABC ENG. CORPORATION PVT LTD) and not against them (ABC ENG. Pvt Ltd) the said Court Order is faulty therefore cannot be EXECUTED against them?

(2)  Will the Appeal Court consider this a valid argument and rule in favor of ABC ENG. CORPORATION PVT LTD?

Humbly requesting the Experts to please share Supreme Court Judgement which says so.

Thanks   



Learning

 12 Replies

Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Advocate)     13 May 2023

what was the case.

1 Like

Bryan   13 May 2023

CMM Court Order against ABC CORPORATION PVT LTD under SARFAESI Act granting possession of the suit property to the bank.

Bank haa staken physical possession and now try to Auction it.

CMM case was file against the wrong company. court Order too against the wrong company.

ABC ENG PVT LTD has filed SA against the Bank in DRT.

Will DRT grant ABC Eng PVT LTD since CMM Order was against wrong legal entity namely ABC ENG CORPORATION PVT LTD?

If possible kindly share relevant Supreme Court to this matter.

Thanks

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate)     13 May 2023

This is a techincal error.

If the bank has initiated the procedures against a wrong person then the wrong person could have fought against it, whereas the company had remained silent and is coming up with a technical error of mispelling of name at the time of taking possession, hence the DRT may not entertain the applicatiobn, therefore you may ahve to look for some other substantial and maintainable reason to prefer an appeal against the bank

1 Like

Bryan   13 May 2023

As per the Law it was not mandatory on the Bank to serve us Notice with regards to the CMM Court case. A company is a seperate legal entity therefore I feel this is more than a question of technical error.ยก

Logically DRT should rule against the Bank and ask the Bank to file a fresh case against the said company.

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate)     14 May 2023

Your understanding is right provided if there is another company existing in the other name that you suggested.

Logically speaking it appears that there two companies with two different names, hence if the bank is taking action against the company which is not the defaulter, then it becomes the duty of the victim or affected company to take up the matter either through DRT or high court with a writ petition under article 227 of the Indian constitution

Bryan   14 May 2023

Sir,

Appreciate your prompt response. Thanks.

I would like to clarify that as per MCA records no such company exists by the name of ABC Eng Corporation Pvt Ltd.

Will this go in our favour?

Court Order is against a non existing Company (Legal Entity)

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     14 May 2023

Whether ABC ENG. PVY LTD. & its Directors.participated in the proceedings before the court.

 

1 Like

Bryan   14 May 2023

Thanks for your response.

ABC ENG PVT LTD did not participate in CMM Court proceedings.

It is not (as per the Law) mandatory for the Bank to serve Notice to the Borrower for proceedings before CMM Court.

Therefore Bank had not served us any Notice.

Only after they got a Court in their favor we were intimated.about the said Order.a

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     14 May 2023

I am of the view that in such a situation there are following remedies for the aggrieved party. Right to question the correctness of the decree in a first appeal is a statutory right, and such a right cannot be curtailed nor any embargo thereupon can be fixed unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication say so. File an an appeal against such decree under section 96(2) or to file a revision under section 115 where no appeal lies; Or apply for review under Order 47 Rule 1; or File a suit on the ground of fraud or file a Petition in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1 Like

Dr J C Vashista (Advocate)     14 May 2023

Since the summons for settlement of issues (under Order V CPC) are stated to have been issued by DRT to ABC ENG. CORPORATION PVT LTD against the OA case filed, which do not exist on ground as well as in MCI records, it cannot be served imlies that the OA is liable to be returned / rejected / dismissed. 

 

1 Like

Bryan   15 May 2023

Sir,
Thanks for your response.
We failed to file an Appeal/Review in this matter since this error was noticed by us much later.
Limitations period for filing such is over.
The said Court Order has already been executed 3 months ago.
We filed an SA in DRT.

Do you feel DRT will grant us relief since Court Order is against some other legal entity?

Bryan   15 May 2023

Sir, Thanks for your response.

Said Order was issued by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court and not by DRT.

As per SARFAESI Act it is not mandatory on the Bank to issue Notice to Borrower for proceedings before CMM Court.

Therefore bank didn't serve us any Notice.
The said Court Order has already been executed 3 months ago.
We filed an SA in DRT.
Do you feel DRT will grant us relief since Court Order is against some other legal entity?


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register