Case Details

Citation(s)
1963 SLG 3168 = 1963 SLD 3168 = 1963 PLD 25
Dacca High Court
  Second Appeal No. 21 of 1958, decided on 22nd July 1960,  
Presented By: Sikandar Ali, J  
B. C. Das for Appellant.   B. K. De for
Respondent

Haji Shaikh AFZAL HOSSAIN----Appellant  

VERSUS

  BHABANI PROSAD SAhA----Respondent  

Law:

Section:

  Company-Public Company-Manager when can file suit on behalf of company-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI rr. 14,45.   Manager, if authorised by the Articles of Association is entitled to file suits on behalf of the company.   Company - Suit, by- Title-Misdescription of plaintif's (company's) name-Name of agent used instead of company's corporate name-Suit may be treated in substance to be one by company if relief is really sought by company and not by agent.   It is the general rule that a company must sue or be sued, not in the names of its agents or servants but in its own corporate name but where relief is really sought by or against the company and the error is merely one of misdescription a suit, though nominally by or against the agent, may be treated in sub stance to be one by or against the company.   A I R 1924 Oudh 309 rel. JUDGMENT   The defendant is the appellant and the appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent. The suit was for arrears of rent for the period from November 1952, to March 1954, in respect of five suits of a building recorded as separate holdings and being Holding Nos. 52, 56, 59, 60 and 61, according to the Municipal records. It was alleged that the defendant took lease of those holdings and was in arrears for the aforesaid period.   The defendant resisted the suit on the ground of non -maintainability. He also pleaded that since 1950 there has been separation of the liability and realization of rent was accordingly being made from the occupier of each of the flats separately and that the defendant had thus no concern with any of said Holdings except that No. 61, regarding which also he put forward a plea of payment. It was further contended that there was a reciprocal promise and that the plaintiff having failed to fulfill his part of the promise was not entitled to recover the rental claimed. Ultimately the learned Munsif dismissed the plaintiff's claim with respect to Holding No. 52, on the finding that the defendant did not actually take lease thereof. With respect to the other four Holdings, however, the suit was decreed in part. Against that there…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register