Suing a dissolved company is incompetent; misdescription will not cure a nullity, and dismissal was upheld.

A suit instituted against a company after its dissolution was held incompetent because a dissolved company has no legal personality and cannot be sued. The court treated the pleading as naming the non-existent dissolved entity, not as a curable misdescription, because the cause title expressly identified that company and the reference to Government control did not convert the defendant into the Government of India. As the defect went to the root of maintainability, amendment could not revive the proceeding. The dismissal under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether a suit described in the cause title as against a company already dissolved under the governing nationalisation and merger framework was maintainable, or whether the description was merely a misdescription capable of amendment.

Analysis: The suit was instituted after the company had ceased to exist. A company on dissolution has no legal personality, and proceedings instituted against a non-existent entity are incompetent. The description in the plaint was not treated as a mere misdescription, because the cause title expressly identified the dissolved company and the reference to Government control did not convert the defendant into the Government of India. In such a situation, there was no scope to cure the defect by amendment, since the suit itself was a nullity.

Conclusion: The suit against the dissolved company was not maintainable, the plea of misdescription failed, and the dismissal under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was upheld.

---