Subsequent events cannot by themselves justify amendment of a company petition; they may only mould relief in a maintainable case.

Subsequent events may be considered only to mould relief in a pending, maintainable petition and do not by themselves justify an amendment that introduces a fresh basis for relief. Here, the applicant sought to amend a company petition on the basis of later AGM-related events said to show continuing oppression and mismanagement, but those matters were already part of another interim proceeding and the original pleadings were complete. On that footing, the Tribunal found the amendment unnecessary for adjudication of the pending petition and refused it.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to amend the company petition on the basis of subsequent events relating to the conduct of later annual general meetings.

Analysis: The application sought amendment on the ground that events occurring after filing of the original petition showed further oppression and mismanagement. The Tribunal noted that the original petition had already been filed, the pleadings were complete, and the later events complained of were already part of another interim proceeding in which the ensuing AGM decisions had been ordered to be kept in abeyance. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that subsequent events may be considered only to mould relief if the main petition succeeds, and not as a standalone basis to expand the petition unless the underlying petition is otherwise maintainable on merits. On that footing, the proposed amendment was not treated as necessary for adjudication of the pending petition.

Conclusion: The application for amendment was not allowed and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Subsequent events may be taken into account only for moulding relief in a pending and maintainable petition, and do not by themselves justify amendment of pleadings to introduce a fresh basis for relief.

---