TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 812
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssur originally for a declaration that he cannot be proceeded against for any liability in respect of a concern by name M/s. Industrial Engineering Corporation,Railway Station Road, Thrissur and other consequential reliefs. According to him, the respondents have proceeded against his properties for some amount due from that concern in respect of which he had no connection. The respondents filed Ext.P2 written statement stating that the petitioner is the partner of M/s. Industrial Engineering Corporation, Railway Station Road, Thrissur and he has been assessed to pay the tax and in order to avoid payment of tax, the present suit has been filed. When interrogatories were served on him, they filed Ext.P3 affidavit stating that the liability is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the liability is in respect of M/s. Industrial Engineering Corporation, Mannuthi and he was a partner of that concern. However he has no connection with either of those concerns and that was the reason why as a clarificatory nature, the present amendment has been sought for and it will not affect the nature of the suit. It is only to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the amendment is necessitated. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader vehemently opposed the petition on the ground that the evidence was over and after the evidence the present petition has been filed changing the nature of the suit including a new prayer as well. It is a highly belated petition also to wriggle out from the liability which has been fastened on him....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....M/s. Industrial Engineering Corporation, Railway Station Road, Thrissur or M/s. Industrial Engineering Corporation, Mannuthi and also modified prayer A stating that he has no liability to pay any amount in respect of the liabilities of the above two concerns and also for incorporation of another prayer as B that his property cannot be proceeded against for any of liabilities of the above concerns on the basis of RR8/64/90 issued by the respondents for realization of the amount. Consequent to the amendment, the valuation portion was also sought to be amended. This was opposed by the respondents. 7. It is true that proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on, Railway Station Road, Thrissur but also conducting in the same name in his ownership another concern by name Industrial Engineering Corporation, Mannuthi also and it is in respect that concern that the present liability has been sought for. This affidavit even admittedly filed in the year 2014. It is immediately after filing of the affidavit answer to the interrogatories that the present application for amendment has been filed by the petitioner when he came to know about the liability in respect of which he has been proceed with. It is true that the affidavit in connection with the interrogatories was submitted on 16.6.2014 but the amendment was filed in December, 2014. It cannot be said that there was undue delay in fling the applicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nconvenience to other side, the same ought to have been allowed on payment of costs. So this court feels that it cannot be said that there was no laches at all, but at the same time the laches cannot be said to be deliberate with a view to protract the proceedings and this court feels that such laches can be condoned on payment of costs. So the order passed by the court below dismissing the application is set aside and the application is allowed on payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the Kerala Station Mediation Centre and the cost will have to be paid within a week from today. If the cost is paid and proof of payment of cost is produced before the court below within the time specified by this court, then the court below is directed to allow....