TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court overturns lower court, allows appeal, emphasizes post-amalgamation rights transferability, affirms plaintiff's entitlement.</h1> <h3>Merchants Bank Ltd. Versus M. Dharmasambarthani Ammal</h3> Merchants Bank Ltd. Versus M. Dharmasambarthani Ammal - [1967] 37 COMP. CAS. 227 (MAD.) Issues: Suit maintainability post-bank amalgamation; Interpretation of provisions under Banking Companies Act, 1949; Transferability of right to sue; Proper remedy in case of bank amalgamation.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the maintainability of a suit following the amalgamation of two banks, focusing on the interpretation of relevant provisions under the Banking Companies Act, 1949. The suit was initially filed by the first plaintiff against several defendants for misfeasance and malfeasance, seeking recovery of funds misappropriated by the defendants. The court framed an additional issue to determine if the newly constituted plaintiff, post-amalgamation, had the right to continue the suit. The lower court dismissed the suit, viewing it as a claim for damages that could not survive the bank merger, suggesting the second plaintiff to seek remedy under the Companies Act, 1956.The High Court, however, disagreed with the lower court's interpretation, emphasizing the transferability of the right to sue following a court-approved amalgamation. Referring to the New Central Jute Mills case, the court highlighted that an accrued right to sue for damages is transferable with property and not limited by the death of the tortfeasor. The judgment emphasized that the scheme of amalgamation transferred all rights of action, including pending suits, to the transferee bank, ensuring continuity of legal proceedings.The court further analyzed Section 45(5)(e) of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, introduced by Act 37 of 1960, which explicitly allows the continuation of actions or proceedings pending against a banking company post-amalgamation. The judgment clarified that the provisions of the amalgamation scheme override any conflicting laws, emphasizing the importance of the phrase 'subject to the provisions of the scheme.' The court concluded that the second plaintiff had the legal standing to continue the suit based on the statutory provisions and the scheme of amalgamation.Regarding the proper remedy post-bank amalgamation, the court ruled that there is no automatic cessation of pending suits based on misfeasance under the Companies Act, 1956 or Banking Companies Act, 1949. The judgment highlighted that the suit was maintainable when initially filed and did not lose its validity due to the bank merger, rejecting the argument that a change in jurisdiction necessitated a shift from a suit to an application for misfeasance.In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court's decree, and remitted the suit for trial and disposal, affirming the second plaintiff's entitlement to continue the legal proceedings. The judgment underlined the transferability of rights post-amalgamation and the primacy of the amalgamation scheme's provisions in determining the legal standing and continuity of suits in such cases.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
