3. The appellants contend that in light of these circumstances, Bank
Kreiss AG could not have filed the suit as principal claiming in its own right,
and at best could have filed it as agent of Cukurova or CHFI, Jersey. They
further claim that there was no disclosure of the assignment deed until 2009
and that on the date of institution of the suit, Bank Kreiss AG had no claim
to enforce in its own right.
4. During the pendency of the suit, Bank Kreiss AG merged with one
Yapi Kredi Bank AG on 27.08.2001. As a result of this, Yapi Kredi Bank
AG took over all the assets and liabilities of Bank Kreiss AG on and from
09.10.2001. The appellants contend that since Bank Kreiss AG had through
the deed of assignment transferred all its claims which are the subject matter
of the suit to Cukurova, (which in turn assigned it to CHFI, Jersey), there
was nothing left to transfer from Bank Kreiss AG to Yapi Kredi Bank AG
FAO(OS) 116/2015 Page 2
during the alleged merger/amalgamation. The fourth appellant moved I.A.
No. 8275/03 on 08.08.2003 for dismissal of suit on the ground that as a
consequence of the merger, Bank Kreiss AG had suffered a corporate death
and since no application was filed under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC, the suit
had abated. Yapi Kredi Bank AG, on 11.08.2003 moved I.A. No. 8670/2003
for substitution and continuing the suit as successor-in-interest under Order
XXII Rule 10 of the CPC.
Source: Indian Kanoon