Amalgamation and impleadment rules prevent execution of a decree against transferees who were not made parties to the suit.

An amalgamation order under section 396 of the Companies Act, 1956 dissolved the original company and allowed pending proceedings to continue only against the resulting company. In that setting, the claimant had to implead the transferee entities before obtaining a decree, because they were entitled to defend the suit. The general provisions in Order XXII rule 10 and section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not override the specific terms of the amalgamation order. A decree passed without impleading the Corporation and the State Government was therefore not executable against them, and the execution orders could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether a decree obtained against a dissolved company, after amalgamation and statutory transfer of its undertaking, could be enforced in execution against the resulting company and the State Government without their being impleaded in the suit, and whether the ex parte decree and execution orders were liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The amalgamation order issued under section 396 of the Companies Act, 1956, dissolved the original company and provided that pending proceedings could be continued only against the resulting company. In such a statutory setting, the claimant was required to bring the transferees on record before proceeding to decree, and the transferees were entitled to an opportunity to defend the suit. General principles under Order XXII rule 10 and section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, did not override the specific mandate of the amalgamation order. Since the Corporation and the State Government had not been impleaded before the decree, the execution against them could not stand.

Conclusion: The decree was not executable against the Corporation and the State Government in the manner adopted, and the impugned execution orders were liable to be set aside.

---