AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 1289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Bhardwaj, Sr. Adv. and Manish Sharma, Amit Bhardwaj, Vishal Malhotra, Advs. for Respondent No.2 in FAO(OS) No.405/09 and CM Nos.12908/09, 10475/10 and 406/09, CM Nos.12911/09, 6093/10 and 406/09 and CM Nos.12911/09, 6093/10 and A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv., Chetan Sharma, Sr. Adv. and Pragyan Sharma Rupesh Gupta, Advs. for Respondent No. 1 in FAO(OS) Nos. 406/09 and CM Nos.12911/09, 6093/10 and 461/2009 and CM No.14117/09 and Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Adv. and Jatin Zaveri, Gaurav Aggarwal, Tanmay Aggarwal, Advs. for Respondent No.3 in FAO(OS) Nos. 461/2009 and CM No.14117/09 and 462/09 CM No.14122/09 JUDGMENT Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. The facts germane for a decision in these Appeals are that in respect of a Sugar Mill Project to be established in Ethiopia, funding has been made available by the Government of India through the aegis of EXIM Bank. The Project has been sub divided into seven sub-projects for which separate and independent tenders were floated. These are - (1) Steam Generation (2) Process House (3) Juice Extraction (4) Power Generation (5) Diesel Generation (6) Factory Workshop and (7) Plant Water System. It was further decided that for ease and facility of implementa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....raph, OIA has pleaded as follows: The correct position, however, is that the right and the power to fix a sub contract on terms and conditions to be negotiated between the answering Defendant and the sub contractors is a matter which is entirely within the domain of the answering Defendant's function as the main EPC contractor. The Defendant No. 1 after signing of contract dated 10.01.2008 and addendum No. 1 dated 21.02.2008 of contract had tried to persuade the plaintiff by verbal and writing communication to sign the contract at the earliest so that the project should not be jeopardized. The answering Defendant may also at this stage point out that since the plaintiff was dillydallying the finalization of the terms of the sub contract to be executed, the said matter was therefore brought to the notice of the Defendant No. 2 vide letter dated 13th June 2008 as also by letter dated 16th June 2008 in pursuance of which clear cut instructions were issued to the answering Defendant to finalize the sub contract agreement with all the sub contractors by 27th June, 2008 with a view to avoid any further delay in the start of the work. A copy of the minutes is being filed by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5.8.2008 accepted the substituted offer for process house package of TSPF in favour of OIA and Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. on the basis of the substituted technical offer submitted by answering Defendant dated 18.7.2008. 5. Both the plaintiffs assert that the contract with Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. was predated with the purpose of defeating the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Contempt proceedings have been initiated by the plaintiff and are presently pending. 6. It is at this juncture that Saraswati Industrial Syndicate filed IA No. 13366/2008 in CS(OS) No. 1868/2008 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short) praying for amendment of the Plaint to be "taken on record'; and for Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. as well as EXIM Bank to be allowed to be impleaded as Defendant Nos. 3 and 4. The amendments have been allowed and the impleadment of only Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. has been permitted in terms of the impugned Order. OIA and Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. have filed separate Appeals. 7. Uttam Sucrotech International Pvt. Ltd. has, in familiar fashion, filed IA No. 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat he is seriously opposing the same. In this view of the matter, list on 3.8.2009 at 2:30 P.M. for further argument on the remaining reliefs prayed for in the application". However, the impugned Order categorically mentions that learned Counsel for OIA has no objection to the amendments being carried out. The learned Single Judge recorded that "as far as the prayer for amendment is concerned, it need not detain me for long and the reason is that after the application had suffered lengthy arguments, for and against, the learned Counsel for Defendant No. 1 conceded that the amendment sought could be allowed subject to liberty to it to raise such objections as may be available to it and to this, it may be noted, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff had no objection". In other words, the reservation viz.-a-viz., the amended Prayers was abandoned and given up. 11. The same sequence of events occurred in the Suit and Application filed by Uttam Sucrotech International Pvt. Ltd. The learned Single Judge has recorded in the Order dated 30.7.2009 that counsel for OIA "states that without prejudice to its rights and contentions, he has no objection if the proposed amended plaint except ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned Single Judge on this aspect and having failed to do so are foreclosed from contending that the impugned Order records the position incorrectly. 13. Since, however, lengthy arguments have already been heard on the merits of the amendments, we think it proper to return a complete and comprehensive answer to the amendment of Plaint controversy. The facts which stand incorporated in the respective plaints, concededly on the concessions of the Respondent/Defendant, speak voluminously and extensively of Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. Pleadings in unamended Plaint (Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd.) 15. The Defendant No. 1, thereafter, began to threaten the plaintiff that they would inform Defendant No. 2 that plaintiff was delaying execution of a formal contract. The plaintiff meanwhile drafted a contract that was acceptable to the plaintiff and in line with the agreement arrived at between all parties on 19th and 20th December, 2007 and the concluded contract terms and conditions between Defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff which was forwarded to the Defendant No. 1 on June 28, 2008. 18. In the agreement between Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 and/or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....exists a positive covenant coupled with an implied negative which the Defendant No. 1 is threatening to breach. This Hon'ble Court ought to grant injunction to perform the negative covenant. The implied negative covenant is contained in letter dated 7.12.2007 from Defendant No. 2 to Defendant No. 1 as under: The winning bidders of other packages are to be retained as sub contractors without any alteration in the agreed technical and financial aspects as already finalized with the individual bidder. Further in letter dated 7.12.2007 from Defendant No. 2 to plaintiff: You, as winning Bidder of Steam Generation Plant Bid Tender No. TSFP-F/002/06/SG, will be retained as sub-contractor to the main EPC Contractor without any alteration in the agreed technical and commercial aspects including the time schedule, as already negotiated and finalized. Further, in the joint meeting, inter alia, plaintiff, Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2: All winning bidders were informed that as per the directive from the Government of Ethiopia, the managements of TSFP and FSF intend to appoint one single EPC contractor and all other winner bidders shall wor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... despite the MOU being valid for a period of 30 days - seemingly, a tearing hurry indeed. However, the Defendant No. 1 proposed the name of Defendant No. 3 to Defendant No. 2 long after 12th July 2008. 18(D). It is also relevant to note that in the alleged sub-contract Agreement dated 12th July, 2008 filed by the Defendant No. 1, Defendants Nos. 1 and 3 have purported to create a definition of "contract documents" which includes documents that have not yet been finalized but are only "proposed'. One of the documents forming part of Contract document is "Minutes of Package Negotiations meeting (proposed) to be held between Employer and Sub-Contractor (WIL), for the Package Facilities on technical aspects". Firstly, there cannot be a meeting or minutes of a meeting which are qualified as "proposed". Secondly, there cannot be minutes of a meeting which is yet "to be held". It is obvious that the documents have been prepared in a hurry only to be produced before this Hon'ble Court with a view to mislead this Hon'ble Court and to frustrate and overreach the orders of this Hon'ble Court. 18(E). That even as late as on 5th August, 2008, in the meeting bet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fraud which they cannot be permitted to do. 18(H) In fact, Defendant No. 1 has itself subsequently filed a letter dated 5th August, 2008 purportedly issued by Defendant No. 2 permitting the Defendant No. 2 to substitute the plaintiff (the authenticity of the said letter is denied). Clearly the said letter dated 5th August, 2008 shows that there could be no contract between Defendant No. 1 and the said Defendant No. 3 prior thereto and further that Defendant No. 1 and 2 were acting in concert and in teeth of the order dated 23rd July, 2008 passed by this Hon'ble Court which is in force even till date. 18(I). The attempt of Defendant No. 1 of clandestinely introducing the purported Sub-Contractor who did not even participate in the tender, is not only contrary to the entire tender process but is also malafide and an attempt to overreach this Hon'ble Court. Further, till date no termination of plaintiff's sub-contract has been communicated. 18(J). The aforesaid facts clearly reveal that the purported sub-contract Agreement dated 12th July ,2008 which was allegedly entered into within four days of signing the Memorandum of understanding which was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alternation in the agreed technical and commercial aspects including the time schedule, as per our bid document and subsequent clarifications given by our Consultant JPMA. 10. That therefore the Defendant No. 1 clearly agreed to the unanimous decision taken in the aforementioned meetings dated 19th and 20th of December to the effect that the contract shall be seamless and that the rights of the winning bidders and their bid award prices shall be adequately protected in the sub-contractor agreement. In view thereof, the Defendant No. 1, was under a legal obligation to finalize the modus of implementing all the various packages (sub-contracts) of the project along with his own award of work/contract. The Defendant No. 1 was further required to do so at the earliest and on the same terms and conditions as agreed to between the parties in the aforementioned meetings. 11. That subsequently it was also revealed that on 20th February, 2008 a contract was executed between the Defendant No. 2, Ehiopia on behalf of Government of Federal Democratic Republic of Ehiopia and the Defendant No. 1. In the said agreement also it has been agreed that there shall be a contract betwee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad been trying to defeat the rights of the plaintiff at very stage so as to oust the plaintiff from the subject project completely. The said letter clearly reveals that apart from the Process House Package which was allotted to the plaintiff, vide Defendant No. 2's letter dated 7.12.2007, the plaintiff was also the lowest bidder in the Power Generation Plant which also ought to have been awarded to the plaintiff. So plaintiff was awarded both the Process House and Power Generation plant bid and was eligible to be appointed as a EPC Contractor. However, strangely, just about 4 days later i.e. on 7.12.2007, facts and records were illegally pruned to a large extent and the plaintiff was declared winning bidder only in the Process House Package and not in the Power Generation Package. (iv) Para 10 of the plaint would be amended as under: That therefore the Defendant No. 1 clearly agreed to the unanimous decision taken in the aforementioned meetings dated 19th and 20th of December to the effect that the contract shall be seamless and that the rights of the winning bidders and their bid award prices shall be adequately protected in the sub-contractor agreement. In v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut any alteration in the agreed technical and commercial aspects of the original tender documents including the price of the bids. (vi) Para 12 That therefore in accordance with the procedure agreed and settled on 19th December and 20th December, 2007 and also in view of the directions of the Defendant No. 2, a formal seamless contract was required to be entered into between the plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1 at the earliest, on the same terms and conditions as those of the original tender documents. It is further pertinent to mention herein that a binding contract had already come into existence between the Defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff vide the letter dated 7.12.2007 which was preceded by detailed technical and commercial meetings between Defendant No. 2 and plaintiff and also the contract dated 10.1.2008 on the same terms and conditions as per the original bid documents on the basis of which the plaintiff had prepared and put in its bid. Therefore, no alterations whatsoever could have been made in the same. (v) para 15 That the plaintiff, vide their letter dated 26.3.2008 replied to the aforesaid letter dated 6.3.208 issued by the Defen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of a lead contractor. Not only the renegotiation of price was contrary to the mandate of Defendant No. 2 and the agreement between the plaintiff and the Sugar Factory Project as well as the minutes of 19th and 20th December, 2007, but also the Defendant No. 1 is stopped from claiming any moneys from the plaintiff to discharge his own obligations to the Defendant No. 2 as a lead contractor after having accepted the said contract/duty without recourse to additional consideration from the plaintiff expressly and/or by conduct. The plaintiff submits that there is already a concluded contract between the Defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1 cannot renegotiate the terms thereof. In any event, the Defendant No. 1's consideration for managing the entire project as a lead contractor must necessarily be included in his consideration of the contract with Defendant No. 2 and Defendant No. 1 cannot insist on consideration from the plaintiff as execution of a contract between the plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1 is a mere formality for due implementation of a project and/or a condition imposed by the Defendant No. 2 which has been accepted by the Defendant No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntiff: You, as winning Bidder of Steam Generation Plant Bid Tender No. TSFP-F/002/06/SG, will be retained as sub-contractor to the main EPC Contractor without any alteration in the agreed technical and commercial aspects including the time schedule, as already negotiated and finalized. Further it is evident from the joint meeting, inter alia, plaintiff, Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2: All winning bidders were informed that as per the directive from the Government of Ethiopia, the managements of TSFP and FSF intend to appoint one single EPC contractor and all other winner bidders shall work as sub contractor to the proposed single EPC contractor. Contract agreement between EPC contractor and winner bidder shall be seamless and address all issues as per original tender documents including GCC, SCC and other financial conditions. The aforesaid clauses clearly stipulates that the Defendant No. 1 is by way of an implied negative covenant not permitted to modify and/or attempt to modify any agreed technical, commercial including price aspects already finalized between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 2. 20B. That the purported MOU....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2 to the Defendant No. 1 clearly substantiates the fact that the alleged MOU dated 8.7.2008 and also the alleged sub contract agreement dated 12.7.2008 have been fabricated and antedated with the malafide intention. The letter dated 5.8.2008 specifically states that it was only in a joint meeting dated 10.7.2008 held under the Chairmanship of the Minister of Trade, that it was decided to consider substitute Sub-contractor proposed by OIA. The letter clearly states thus: We refer to the joint meeting dated July 10, 2008 held under the Chairmanship of His Excellency the Minister of Trade and Industry, where by it was decided to consider substitute Sub-Contractors/Consortium Partners proposed by OIA and conduct technical evaluation of substitute offers for the subject packages. However, as stated by the Defendant No. 1 themselves in their written statement, they had entered into an MOU on 8.7.2008 (which is even two days prior to the proposed decision to substitute which was only taken on 10.7.2008). It is submitted that the decision to consider substitute Sub-Contractors/Consortium Partners was taken only on 10.7.2008 and thus there could have been no MOU on 8.7.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with false and misleading contents, which is clearly evident from Clause 4 of the said agreement, which provides as under: Article 4 Technical Conditions The technical aspects of the project as already agreed between the Employer and the Sub-contractor shall not be altered and shall be adhered to by the Sub-contractor. The said clause portrays as if the technical aspects had already been agreed upon prior to 12.7.2008, whereas allegedly the technical aspects of the project was agreed only allegedly vide the Letter dated 5.8.2008. This fact clearly demonstrates that the said sub-contract was antedated inasmuch as on 12.7.2008, the technical aspects of the project between the Employer and the sub-contractor qua the project in question was never accepted. 20J. That even as late as on 4th or the 5th August, 2008, in the meeting between the Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2, there is no mention that a definite agreement had been signed with Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. In fact the letter dated 5.8.2008 clearly states that the technical negotiation meetings were held on August 4 and 5, 2008 with OIA-WIL experts. It is further revealed from the minutes of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actor has submitted to the Employer (through the EPC Contractor) the Performance Security and the Advance Payment Guarantee as specified in Appendix 9-10 attached herein for the value defined in SCC and GCC; (c) The EPC contractor has paid 10% of the Contract value to the Sub contractor as the advance payment d) Technical and commercial approval of WIL by the Employer. It is submitted that Sub-clause (b), (c) and (d) of the said Article 3 is yet to be fulfilled till date inasmuch as inter alia the performance security and the advance payment as stipulated under the Agreement has not been made and neither have the technical and commercial approvals as required been granted. It is submitted that the alleged technical approval as required under the clause was granted if at all, only 5.8.2008 and not before and the same was in blatant disregard and violation of the order dated 30.7.2008 passed by this Hon'ble Court. No commercial approval of the appropriate value was granted. No payment has been made by the Defendant No. 2 to WIL. 20N. Furthermore, despite being specifically restrained by this Hon'ble Court, the Defendant No. 1, in furtherance of its ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....letter dated 16.6.2008 sought to be relied upon by the Defendant No. 1 did not constitute any approval of substituting the plaintiff as alleged by the Defendant No. 1. The Defendant No. 1 is clearly suppressing all material facts as the aforesaid documents are within the knowledge of Defendant No. 1 who has chosen to conceal the same from this Hon'ble Court. Assuming without conceding, neither the negotiations nor the minutes and/or any alleged MOU could have been entered into or be given effect to in view of clear restraint imposed by the order dated 30.7.2008 passed by this Hon'ble Court and the Defendant No. 1 ought not to be permitted to defeat the bonafide rights of the plaintiff and/or overreach this Hon'ble Court. 20R. The Petitioner recently discovered that a consortium Agreement dated 16.7.2008 was entered into between the Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 3, wherein it was agreed that the parties would enter into a definitive transaction agreement subsequently. The relevant clause of the said Consortium Agreement has been extracted hereunder: (3) The parties shall enter into a "definitive transaction agreement" on being qualified by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tire tender process but is also malafide and an attempt to overreach the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court. Further, till date no termination of plaintiff's sub-contract has even been communicated. 20V. The aforesaid facts clearly reveal that the purported sub-contract Agreement dated 12th July, 2008 which was allegedly entered into within four days of signing the Memorandum of Understanding which was valid for 30 days is clearly ante dated with a view to defeat the injunction order passed by this Hon'ble Court. The said purported sub-contract Agreement cannot be permitted to be implemented and be proceeded with and being in complete violation of the order dated 30th July, 2008 is void ab initio. Even the purported permission dated 5th August, 2008 cannot be acted upon and is void ab initio as Defendant No. 2 was also informed of the order dated 30th July, 2008. 20W. That Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are acting in concert and are attempting to overreach the issues pending before this Hon'ble Court and perpetrate a fraud which they cannot be permitted to do. 14. The original Plaint may not have contained their name yet the cause of action, as plea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is more than just arguable that the Court ought to have suo moto impleaded Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. since its presence is undeniably necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. This is especially so since the plaintiff has pleaded that the contract with Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. has been predated and that they are the co-conspirators and beneficiaries of the alleged tort. 16. Learned Counsel for the Appellants have also submitted that the relief is essentially in the nature of specific performance of a contract and such a relief cannot be granted in the form of mandatory injunction. This is altogether a different aspect of the case, not related in any wise with the conundrum of whether the amendments should be permitted. It would not be judicious to allow an unrelated aspect of the case to influence the decision on another aspect or nuance of the lis. 17. The Appellants assert that they had not given their consent vis-à-vis introduction of the additional prayers which stand introduced because of permitting the amendments. It is argued that Defendant No. 1 had only conceded to amendment of some of the pleadings but had seri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the prayers is essential and unavoidable and the impugned decision must unequivocally be upheld. 18. The prayers, as they stood in the original Suit Nos. CS(OS) No. 1368/2008 and 1447/2008 and as they are after the amendments were allowed by the impugned Order, are reproduced for ease of reference: Prayers in Original Suit (a) Grant a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 from interfering in the contract/award of contract between plaintiff and Defendant No. 2. (b) Grant perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 from modifying any technical and/or commercial terms including price agreed/finalized between the plaintiff and the Defendant No. 2. (c) Grant perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 from engaging any third party in respect of the Process House Project. (d) Grant a decree of mandatory injunction directing Defendant No. 1 to execute the obligation of signing a formal contract with the plaintiff in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 contained in letter dated 7.12.2007. (e) Costs; and f) Pass such further order as thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (j) Grant a decree of perpetual injunction restraining Defendant No. 1, 2 and 3 from proceeding with and/or acting upon in any manner whatsoever on the purported sub-contract Agreement dated 12th July, 2008; or on any subsequent date. (k) Grant a decree of declaration that the purported permission granted vide letter dated 5.8.2008 issued by Defendant No. 2 to Defendant No. 1 is invalid and/or void ab initio and cancel the said permission dated 5.8.2008. (l) Declare that the amendment dated 15.9.2008 to the agreement dated 10.1.2008 is illegal and void ab initio and cancel the said amendment dated 15.9.2008 to the agreement dated 10.1.2008. (m) Grant a decree of permanent injunction restraining Defendant No. 1, 2 and 3 from taking any action pursuant to the purported letter dated 5.8.2008. (n) Grant a decree of mandatory injunction directing the Defendant No. 1 and 2 to undo the contemptuous and illegal acts done and status quo ante as on 30.7.2008 be restored. (o) Grant a decree of perpetual injunction restraining Defendant No. 4 from disbursing any funds in the line of credit opened by it from the Government of Ethiopia. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ree of declaration that the purported sub-contract Agreement dated 12th July, 2008 between Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 3 is invalid and void ab initio, and cancel the said Contract Agreement dated 12th July, 2008. (f) declare that the alleged consortium agreement dated 16.7.08 entered into between the Defendant No. 1 and the Defendant No. 3 is illegal and void ab initio and cancel the said Consortium Agreement dated 16.7.2008. (g) declare that the addendum No. 1 dated 21.2.2008 to the Agreement dated 10.1.2008 is illegal void ab initio and cancel the said Addendum No. 1 dated 21.2.2008 to the agreement dated 10.1.2008. (h) declare that the Amendment dated 15.9.2008 to the agreement dated 10.1.2008 is illegal and void ab initio and cancel the said Amendment dated 15.9.2008 to the agreement dated 10.1.2008. (i) grant a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 and 2 from taking any steps in furtherance of the amendment dated 15.9.2008 illegally made to the contract agreement dated 10.1.2008 allegedly entered into between Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 or creating any rights in favour of Defendant No. 3. (j) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd. is sought on an entirely new cause of action which does not form part of the Original Suit and, therefore, the plaintiffs are now seeking to alter the entire nature of suit by urging new causes of action and adding Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. as parties. Reliance is placed on Anil Kumar Singh -vs- Shionath Mishra, (1995) 3 SCC 147, Kasturi -vs- Iyammperumal (2005) 650 SCC 753 and Bharat Karsondas Thakkar -vs- Kiran Construction Co., (2008) 13 SCC 658 to buttress the argument that a third party or an outsider to a suit between plaintiff and Defendant, who is unrelated to the controversy between the parties to the suit, is not allowed to be impleaded as party. 20. In Anil Kumar Singh, the plaintiff sought to implead the Respondent who he alleged had obtained a collusive Decree in connivance with his sons and wife and had thus become a co-sharer to the property to be conveyed under the Agreement to Sell which was the bedrock of the Specific Performance Suit filed by him. Their Lordships, while rejecting his prayers for amendment and impleadment of the Respondent, noted that: 3 The obtaining of a decree and acquiring the status as a co-owner during the pendency of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... specific performance of the contract for sale. In Amon v. Raphael Tuck and Sons Ltd.5 it has been held that a person is legally interested in the answers to the controversies only if he can satisfy the court that it may lead to a result that will affect him legally. 22. In Bharat Karsondas Thakkar, the facts were that the High Court had granted leave to the plaintiff to amend his Suit for declaration to be virtually transformed into a suit for Specific Performance and had also allowed the impleadment of the subsequent purchaser. The Hon'ble Supreme Court applied the ratio of Kasturi and Anil Kumar Singh to hold that the plaintiff was trying to materially alter the suit and the impleadment of the subsequent purchaser sought by him could not be granted in law. 23. We do not appreciate any manner in which the rationale of these cases support the Appellants' case. The Suits filed by the plaintiffs before us are of tortuous interference where the allegations are that OIA conspired and colluded with Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. to oust them from the contract with TENDAHO. The stage to test the merits of their claim has not come as yet, but since the Suit is one of tortuou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssary modifications, apply in relation to the High Court of Delhi. Such like provisions do not create the right to appeal but are merely indicative of the forum which will hear the appeal. Letters Patent have become necessary because of orders passed in the High Court were appealable only before the Privy Council in England. This unnecessarily entailed not only Court expense but also the discomfort and difficulty in arranging legal counsel. If legal annals are comprehensively and meaningfully stated, it will become evident that this was why the need to provide for an appeal within India was found expedient. This should not be confused to hold that Appeals are maintainable even where the Code of Civil Procedure does not provide for them. After Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is read, it will be evident that appeals have been provided for in all those cases where a remedy by way of a second look at the controversy was expeditiously essential. We think this is why the word "judgment' has been used in contradistinction to the word "order'; both in Letters Patent as well as Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act. Judgment has been defined in Shah Babulal Khi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ough an amendment, additional grounds or cause of action, that came to his knowledge after filing of the Suit or those which happened subsequently but relate back to the original cause of action pleaded in the original Plaint. 27. The Court may also allow the plaintiff to add new prayers to the suit if, by doing so, no violence will be caused to the nature of the suit as it originally stood, nor a right, which gets vested in the Defendant on account of limitation or because of an admission by the plaintiff is taken away. Prevention of multiplicity of Suits, and a holistic disposal of a dispute are material considerations that the Courts consider while favourably receiving an amendment plea. The courts, while allowing the amendment, may balance the equities by awarding costs to the other party in case some prejudice is seen to be caused which can be adequately compensated in monitory terms. 28. There is such a plentitude of precedents on this aspect of law that making even the briefest and cryptic reference thereto will result in rendering these opinions avoidably prolix. We shall, therefore, restrict our reference to the most recent exposition and enunciation of the law which....