1991 (1) TMI 457 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure
2. Amendment of the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code
3. Locus standi of the plaintiff and jurisdiction of the Court
4. Addition of new defendants
5. Validity of the sale and transfer of shares
6. Jurisdiction and applicability of foreign bankruptcy laws

Detailed Analysis:

1. Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The plaintiff's application under Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed. The court noted that no urgent or immediate relief was sought against the Central Government, and the application did not specify any grounds for the court to exercise discretion under subsection (2) of Section 80.

2. Amendment of the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code:
The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to add additional defendants and a new relief. The court allowed the plaintiff to amend the plaint to add additional facts if a separate application is filed and if the amendments fall within the purview of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code. However, the court declined the request to add the new relief as it was too vague and not necessary for determining the real question in controversy.

3. Locus standi of the plaintiff and jurisdiction of the Court:
The defendant challenged the locus standi of the plaintiff and the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that the plaintiff had been declared bankrupt in England and was not a discharged insolvent. The court held that under Section 20 of the Code, it had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit as P.N.B. carried on business in Delhi. The court also noted that the plaintiff had not been declared insolvent by any court in India under the Provincial Insolvency Act.

4. Addition of new defendants:
The plaintiff sought to add six new defendants, including the Reserve Bank of India and the Union of India. The court declined the request to add these defendants, noting that no relief was sought against them regarding the settlement, and their addition would result in misjoinder of causes of action and parties. The court also noted that there was no cause of action against the other defendants sought to be added, as the entire transaction took place outside India.

5. Validity of the sale and transfer of shares:
The plaintiff contended that the sale and transfer of shares of Jokai Tea Holdings Limited were against public interest and banking policy. The court declined to add the new relief sought by the plaintiff, noting that the relief was too vague and not necessary for determining the real question in controversy. The court also noted that the transaction was a commercial one and did not involve questions of public interest or banking policy.

6. Jurisdiction and applicability of foreign bankruptcy laws:
The defendant argued that the court lacked jurisdiction as the plaintiff had been declared bankrupt in England and had submitted to the jurisdiction of English courts. The court held that under Section 20 of the Code, it had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The court also noted that any agreement restricting recourse to Indian courts would be void under Section 28 of the Contract Act. The court found that the plaintiff had not been declared insolvent by any court in India and that no rule of international law ousted its jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
All three applications (I.As. Nos. 5403 of 1990, 11264 of 1990, and 10685 of 1990) were dismissed. The court held that it had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and declined to add new defendants or grant the new relief sought by the plaintiff. The court also noted that the plaintiff had not been declared insolvent by any court in India and that any agreement restricting recourse to Indian courts would be void.