https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287473 Impleadment that would introduce a new and independent cause of action, widen an injunction suit, or create misjoinder and multifariousness was refused, and leave under Section 80(2) CPC was not justified absent urgent relief against the Central Government. Amendment to add foreign companies and a fresh declaratory prayer concerning a share sale and guarantee was also declined because the proposed parties were neither necessary nor proper and the new relief was vague and unnecessary. Territorial jurisdiction remained with the Indian court where the defendant bank carried on business in Delhi; a foreign forum clause did not oust that jurisdiction. The bankruptcy objection likewise failed for want of any conclusive insolvency adjudication. en-us Mon, 28 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Apr 2020 15:07:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287473 Impleadment that would introduce a new and independent cause of action, widen an injunction suit, or create misjoinder and multifariousness was refused, and leave under Section 80(2) CPC was not justified absent urgent relief against the Central Government. Amendment to add foreign companies and a fresh declaratory prayer concerning a share sale and guarantee was also declined because the proposed parties were neither necessary nor proper and the new relief was vague and unnecessary. Territorial jurisdiction remained with the Indian court where the defendant bank carried on business in Delhi; a foreign forum clause did not oust that jurisdiction. The bankruptcy objection likewise failed for want of any conclusive insolvency adjudication. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 28 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287473