ASIAN HOTELS (NORTH) LTD. versus ALOK KUMAR LODHA & ORS

Citation: [2022] 12 S.C.R. 124 · Decided: 12-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
124
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 12 S.C.R.
ASIAN HOTELS (NORTH) LTD.
v.
ALOK KUMAR LODHA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3703-3750 of 2022)
JULY 12, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Or.I, r.10 & Or.VI, r. 17 –
Amendment of Plaint – Joinder of Necessary and Proper Party –
The appellant granted licenses for individual shops to various
shopkeepers including respondent – Notice of revocation of license
was served by the appellant to the respondents – A suit for
declaration was instituted by the respondents for declaration that
the license granted in respect of shop/ premises is irrevocable and
perpetual – During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the respondent
filed application for amendment of the plaint for challenging various
mortgages created by the appellant, in favour of certain banks –
Another application was also filed seeking to implead the Banks
and the Financial Institutions as defendant – Both the applications
were allowed by the High Court – On appeal, held: By the purported
amendment, the original plaintiffs have now prayed to declare that
all the mortgages/charges created on the premises as void ab-initio –
Even such a prayer can be said to be too vague – How the
respondents can now can be permitted to challenge various
mortgages/ charges created from time to time – Now after a number
of years, respondents cannot be permitted to challenge the
mortgages/charges created on the entire premises including shops –
The High Court while allowing the amendment application has not
properly appreciated the fact and/or considered the fact that as
such, by granting such an amendment the nature of the suits will be
changed – It would also result in misjoinder of causes of action –
The principle that the plaintiffs is the dominus litus shall be applicable
only in a case where parties sought to be added as defendants are
necessary and/or proper parties – Plaintiffs cannot be permitted to
join any party as a defendant who may not be necessary and/or
proper parties – Therefore, in a suit challenging revocation of the
respective licenses, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to challenge
[2022] 12 S.C.R. 124
124
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
125
the respective mortgages/charges created on the entire premises as
void ab-initio.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that
mortgages have been created in favour of different mortgage
banks/financial institutions since 1982 onwards which have been
extended and/or rolled over, refinanced and replaced from time
to time. The mortgages are created not only with respect to the
shops/premises occupied by the original plaintiffs, but with respect
to the entire premises/Hyatt Residency Hotel. The respective
original plaintiffs are granted licenses for individual shops which
are part of entire premises. According to the appellant, first
mortgage was created in the year 1982. At that time, none of the
original plaintiffs were license holders. They have been granted
license for individual shops at the premises from 1983 onwards
to various shopkeepers including respondents-original plaintiffs.
The appellant, being owner – licensor, has terminated the
respective licenses granted in favour of respective license holders
– original plaintiffs. The revocation of the license is subject matter
of respective suits. Therefore, the only controversy/issue in the
respective suits is with respect to revocation of the respective
licenses. By way of an amendment of the plaint the plaintiffs now
want to challenge the mortgages/charges on the entire premises
created by the appellant. As such, the original plaintiffs are not at
all concerned with the mortgages created by the appellant which
is required for the continuous development of the hotel. By the
purported amendment, the original plaintiffs have now prayed to
declare that all the mortgages/charges created on the premises
as void ab-initio. Even such a prayer can be said to be too vague.
How the original plaintiffs can now can be permitted to challenge
various mortgages/charges created from time to time. At this
stage, it is required to be noted that even under the License
Agreement (clause 13) the Licensor shall have the right to create
charges/mortgages as and by way of first charge on its land,
premises and the buildings (including shops) constructed and to
be constructed, in favour of financial institutions and banks as
security for their terms loan advanced/to be advance

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.