TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 2013
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Order VII Rule 11, CPC as filed on behalf of defendant No.1, stood rejected. 2. Vide the above application, three grounds were raised on behalf of the defendant: (i). The suit in question being based on an oral agreement between two companies, could not have been maintained. The Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2013') does not provide for any oral agreement between the companies and in terms of Section 21 of the Act of 2013, an agreement between the companies, if any, has to be in writing. (ii) No authority letter had been placed on record by the plaintiff to reflect that defendant No.2 had been authorized by defendant No.1 Company to execute any agreement on its behalf. In the absence of any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espondent relied upon the Calcutta High Court Division Bench Judgment in Madhab Chandra Basu Vs. Safikul Molla; FMAT No. 109 of 2026 (decided on 09.04.2026.). 6. Heard the Counsels. Perused the record. 7. Qua the issue - Whether an agreement between two companies can be oral; although in Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Telangana High Court held that an oral agreement entered between two juristic persons is not valid, but then the said ratio was laid down while keeping into consideration Section 46 of the Act of 1956. Admittedly, Section 46 stood repealed by the Act of 2013 and there is no corresponding provision to earlier Section 46, in the Act of 2013. While dealing with a similar set of facts and circumstances, the Punjab & Haryan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....side, cannot be relied upon. 9. Further, Special Leave to Appeal preferred before Hon'ble the Apex Court against the order passed in M/s. Shorewala Investment & Properties Ltd. (supra) stood dismissed. Therein too, there is no specific finding on the issue involved, but then, dismissal of the appeal definitely would mean affirmation of the order. 10. In view thereof, the learned Trial Court rightly observed that in absence of any specific barring clause in the Act of 2013, it is the General Law which would apply. 11. So far as the General Law is concerned, it is not in dispute that the Indian Contract Act does recognize an oral agreement. As held by Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Madhab Chandra Basu (supra), there is no s....