9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 2067X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arently, and thus the amendment to the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in view of the factum that issues have not yet been framed would not come into play. It is considered essential and appropriate to set aside the order of the learned Trial Court which had not permitted the amendment prayed for - taking into account the delay and laches in the case on behalf of the petitioner seeking to quantify the damages, the amendment sought by the plaintiffs i.e. the petitioners is allowed subject to payment of cost of ₹ 80,000 to be paid to the respondent before the learned Trial Court. Petition disposed off. - CM(M) 1157/2018 & CAV 882/2018 and CM APPL. 39063/2018 - - - Dated:- 24-9-2018 - Ms. Justice Anu Malhotra Mr. Viraj Datar, Mr. Vineet Jhanji and Mr. Imran Moulaey, Advocates. Mr. Ashish Mohan with Mr. Mukesh Kumar and Mr. Arjun Chowdhary, Advocates for R-1 to R-6 R-8. ORDER CM APPL. 39064/2018 (exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. CAV 882/2018 The learned counsel for the caveator is present. The caveat is discharged. CM(M) 1157/2018 CM APPL. 39063/2018 Vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their agents, employees and associates to forthwith handover all letter heads and other documents or instruments, stamps and seals created by them bearing the name of the Plaintiff Company or which may otherwise be in their possession and control and direct the destruction of the same: and (e) Issue a Mandatory Injunction directing the Defendants No. 9 10 to forthwith remove from the records maintained with the said Defendant No 9 in relation to the Plaintiff Company all Forms including Form 32 (Annexure- P17), Form 18 (Annexure- P 18), Form 2 ( Annexure-P19) and Form 5 ( Annexure P20) and all such other unauthorized filed; and (f) Issue a Mandatory Injunction directing the Defendant No. 9 10 and their successors in office to immediately institute and initiate appropriate proceedings against the Defendants No. 1-8 and against all those who have filed the unauthorized Form 32 (Annexure P17) Form 18 (Annexure P-18), Form 2 (Annexure- P19,) and Form 5 (Annexure- P20) and in particular proceedings under the provisions of the Companies Act with respect to the falsification of the Plaintiff companies records with the Defendant No 9 by the filing of the various falsified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the plaint. During the course of submissions that have been made on behalf of the plaintiff, it is however submitted that non-quantification of the damages was on the basis of some ill advise and in view of the verdict of the Division Bench of this Court in ZUBAIR UL ABIDIN [DR.] ORS. Vs. SAMEENA ABIDIN @SAMEENA KHAN of 214 (2014) DELHI LAW TIMES 340, and observations therein in virtually similar circumstances where the damages had not been quantified, in view of the observations in para 15 of the said verdict on which reliance is placed on behalf of the respondent as well, where it had been observed to the effect:- 15. The claim for the damages is not such qua which enquiry is to be held nor are the damages claimed such as to which account are to be taken under the orders of the Court. It is for the respondent/plaintiff to quantify the damages claimed and prove the entitlement thereto. It was thus incumbent upon the respondent/plaintiff to quantify the damages/compensation for recovery of which the suit was filed and in the absence thereof, no inquiry into the claim for damages can be conducted . Similarly, if the respondent/plaintiff presses the claim for damages, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Reliance has thus been placed on behalf of the petitioner on the verdict of this Court in Dr. D.K. Seth vs Dr. Durga Prasad Ray in C.M. (M) 806/2017 dated 01.08.2017 with specific reference to Section 40 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 to submit that in terms of Section 40 thereof, and the proviso thereto even in the event of no damages having been claimed, the Court can at any stage of the proceedings allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including such claims. Observations in para 24 of the said verdict read to the effect:- 24. Thought the senior counsel for the petitioner / defendant has argued that there is no judgment on Section 40 supra but I find this Court, in Jagdish Vs. Har Sarup ILR (1978) II Del 266 to have held that t he proviso to sub Section (2) of Section 40 shows that howsoever belated the request for amendment may be and even if the claim put forward by way of amendment is hopelessly barred by limitation, it is the bounden duty of the Court to allow the amendment. The said view was followed in (i) J.K. Churamani Vs. Escorts Ltd. (1989) 39 DLT 380; (ii) Singilidevi Veera Venkata Ananthalakshmi Vs. Bhamidipati See ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent is not introducing any new cause of action nor would it change the cause of action as originally pleaded. Thus, there is neither change of cause of action nor introduction of any new cause of action after the bar of limitation. The High Court was, therefore, right in allowing the petition for amendment of the plaint. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the petitioner on the verdict of the Hon ble Supreme Courtin Lakha Ram Vs. Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 17 SCC 671 qua the aspect when considering the amendment whether it is to be granted or not, the Court does not go into the merits of the matter and decide whether or not the claim made therein was bona fide or not and whether it was for the purpose of taking the matter out of the jurisdiction of the Trial Court where the matter was pending. Reliance is also placed on behalf of the petitioner on the verdict of this Court in Arjun Chowdhry Vs. Capital Land Builders Ors . in CRP 141/2018 dated 17.07.2018 to the similar effect. On behalf of the respondent, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondent while placing on the reliance on the verdict of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Sou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EENA ABIDIN @SAMEENA KHAN of 214 (2014) DELHI LAW TIMES 340. The aspect of the merits or demerits of the amendment cannot be gone into at this stage. In view of the verdict of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Lakha Ram supra , taking into account that the prayer had also been made seeking damages with a submission further to the effect that the quantum of damages would be ascertained, the submission made now seeking quantification of the damages in terms of the verdict of the Hon ble Division Bench of this Court cannot be termed to be lacking of bona fides . In the circumstances though undoubtedly there is an undue delay in seeking the prayer made by the petitioner, as apparent from the record, in view of the proceedings dated 08.08.2018 between the same parties in CM (M) No. 822/2018 , the plaint instituted on 04.10.2006 has not yet reached the stage of completion of pleadings as on the date 08.08.2018 and has still not reached the same apparently, and thus the amendment to the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in view of the factum that issues have not yet been framed would not come into play. In the circumstances despite the contentions on behalf of the respondent that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
