https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97888 An erroneous corporate description in a writ was treated as a curable misnomer, not the substitution of a new defendant. The court held that, read as a whole and against the surrounding correspondence and dealings, the writ plainly identified the intended company, so a reasonable recipient would understand it was meant for that defendant despite the omission of "Limited" and the use of a non-existent firm name. Because no new party was introduced, the amendment was permissible and limitation did not defeat the claim; the objection to strike out the writ failed and the company remained the proper defendant. en-us Tue, 10 Oct 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Feb 2018 11:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97888 An erroneous corporate description in a writ was treated as a curable misnomer, not the substitution of a new defendant. The court held that, read as a whole and against the surrounding correspondence and dealings, the writ plainly identified the intended company, so a reasonable recipient would understand it was meant for that defendant despite the omission of "Limited" and the use of a non-existent firm name. Because no new party was introduced, the amendment was permissible and limitation did not defeat the claim; the objection to strike out the writ failed and the company remained the proper defendant. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 10 Oct 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97888