NAK ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT. LTD. versus TARUN KESHRICHAND SHAH AND ORS.

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 504 · Decided: 05-01-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PANKAJ MITHAL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 1 S.C.R. 504 : 2026 INSC 8
NAK Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd.  
v. 
Tarun Keshrichand Shah and Ors. 
(Civil Appeal No(s). 46-47 of 2026)
05 January 2026
[Pankaj Mithal* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Under challenge in these appeals is the judgment and order of the 
High Court dated 21.02.2022 setting aside the order of the court 
of first instance permitting impleadment of the appellant as one 
of the defendants to the suit.
Headnotes†
Suit – Recovery of service charges – A suit was instituted 
by respondent nos.1 and 2 against respondent no.3 for the 
recovery of service charges – Notice was served upon sole 
defendant i.e., respondent no.3 but no one appeared – The 
Court proceeded ex-parte – Thereafter, the appellant filed an 
application for being impleaded as the defendant in this suit 
contending that it is a successor of respondent no.3 – The 
court of first instance vide order dated 05.10.2018 allowed 
the motion to add the appellant as one of the defendants – 
However, the impleadment of the appellant was revoked by 
the High Court on the ground that it is not a proper or a 
necessary party to the suit – Correctness:
Held: The appellant has relied upon the Certificate of Incorporation 
dated 22.02.1988 to claim that it has succeeded the respondent 
no.3 – Its incorporation or its Certificate of Incorporation in no way 
conclusively proves that it has come into existence as a successor 
of respondent no.3 – In such circumstances, appellant cannot be 
accepted to be the successor of respondent no.3 so as to permit it 
to be impleaded and to defend the suit for the recovery of service 
charges – The appellant has nowhere established its independent 
right to be impleaded to defend the suit except for claiming to be 
the successor of respondent no.3 which, in opinion of this Court, 
* Author
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 
505
NAK Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. v.  
Tarun Keshrichand Shah and Ors.
has no legs to stand – In the case at hand, the respondent nos.1 
and 2 are not claiming any relief against the appellant – There is 
no iota of material to indicate that the relief, as claimed in the suit 
against respondent no.3, if granted, would be implemented against 
the appellant – Therefore, the appellant is not a necessary party 
to the suit – The appellant cannot also be construed as a proper 
party once it has failed to establish that it is a successor to the 
respondent no.3 – In the absence of any evidence to prove that 
respondent no.3 has ceased to exist or cannot be represented in the 
suit on its own to contest it on merits – This apart, the respondent 
nos.1 and 2 who have instituted the suit are dominus litis and it 
is for them to choose their adversaries – If they do not array the 
proper and necessary parties to the suit, they do it at their own 
risk – They cannot be compelled to add a party to defend a suit – 
Besides, the summons issued in the suit meant to be served upon 
respondent no.3, were served in the year 2008 – The seal and 
signatures on the acknowledgement on the said summons is of the 
appellant – However, the appellant kept silent – The impleadment 
application was filed almost after nine years of the knowledge – 
Thus, the impleadment has been rightly refused to the appellant 
by the High Court. [Paras 30, 31, 37, 38, 39, 42]
Case Law Cited
Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of 
Greater Bombay [1992] 2 SCR 1 : (1992) 2 SCC 524; Kasturi v. 
Iyyamperumal [2005] 3 SCR 864 : (2005) 6 SCC 733; Mumbai 
International Airport (P) Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & 
Hotels  (P) Ltd. [2010] 7 SCR 790 : (2010) 7 SCC 417; Vidur 
Impex & Traders (P) Ltd. v. Tosh Apartments (P) Ltd. [2012] 10 
SCR 307 : (2012) 8 SCC 384; Kanaklata Das v. Naba Kumar Das 
[2018] 1 SCR 806 : (2018) 2 SCC 352 – relied on.
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Companies Act, 1956.
List of Keywords
Dominus Litis; Necessary Party; Proper Party; Privity of 
Contract; Successor-in-Interest; Impleadment; Inordinate Delay;  
Ex-Parte.
506
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 46-47 of 
2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.02.2022 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay in WP Nos. 3455 and 3456 of 2019
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Adv., Amarjit Singh Bedi, Ms. Surekha 
Raman, Harshit Singh, Sidharth Nair, Shreyash Kumar, M/s K J 
John And Co.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):

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