RAJESH KUMAR AGGARWAL AND ORS. versus K.K. MODI AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 175 · Decided: 22-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RAJESH KUMAR AGGARWAL AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
K.K. MODI AND ORS. 
MARCH 22, 2006 
[H.K SEMA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; 
Order VI rule 17-Amendment of pleadings-Scope of-Held, all 
amendments should be allowed that may be necessary for determining the real C 
question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice 
or prejudice to the other side. 
Order VI rule I ?-Amendment of pleadings-Duty of the court-Held, 
is to decide whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real D 
dispute between the parties and if it is, the amendment will be allowed; if it 
is not, the amendment will be refused. 
Order VI rule 17-Amendment of pleadings-Approach of the court-
Held, should be liberally allowed since procedural obstacles ought not to 
impede the dispensation of justice. 
The appellants are beneficiaries of Modipon Limited Senior 
Executive (Officers) Welfare Trust which was formed for the general 
benefit of employees employed in the Fibre Division of Modipon Limited 
E 
and the purpose was to provide benefits to such employees and dependent 
members of their families particularly for the purposes of giving them F 
education, medical relief, facilities for sports, cultural and other activities 
on sound, permanent and organized basis. The respondents (defendant 
Nos. 1-4) are Trustees of the Trust. The Trust purchased 19, 314 equity 
shares of Godfrey Philips (India) Limited ('GPf') in the name of 
respondent No. I in his capacity as a trustee of the Trust. GPI issued bonus G 
shares to its existing shareholders. Bonus shares were issued in the ratio 
of 1:1 in the year of 1992-93. By reason of the above, the Trust became 
entitled to 57, 942 shares of GPI. According to the appellant, the bonus 
shares issued have not been forwarded to the trust and the share 
certificates despatched by GPI from time to time were not received by the 
I~ 
H 
176 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 3 S.C.R. 
A Secretary of the Trust. It was further stated that a new account was opened 
by respondent No. 1 at Oriental Bank of Commerce in his name and not 
in the name of the Trust and is being operated by respondent No. 1. Since 
the beneficiaries of the Trust were not deriving any benefit from the Trust 
and as such the appellants were constrained to file a suit for declaration, 
B permanent injunction and mandatory injunction in the High Court of 
Delhi. After filing of the written statements by the defendant no. I and 5, 
the appellant filed an interlocutory application seeking amendments to the 
plaint to the effect that the shares were not fetching good returns and as 
such in the interest of justice the shares may be sold and then invested in 
Government Bonds and/or Securities which will be in interest of 
C beneficiaries, because at present the beneficiaries are not deriving any 
benefit by virtue of the said shares which are in power and possession of 
defendant no. 1 as is evident from the records of the case. Further 
amendment in the prayer to incorporate relief of mandatory injunction 
directing the defendants to sell the shares of G Pl held by the Trust and 
D 
use the sale proceeds thereof for the benefit of the beneficiaries, was also 
sought. Single Judge of the High Court allowed the application of the 
appellant but the Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by respondent 
No. I and dismissed the application of the appellants for amendment of 
plaint on the ground that the proposed amendment introduces a totally 
different, new and inconsistent case and that the application does not 
E appear to have been made in good faith and at the instance of some one 
behind the curtain. 
It was contended inter alia by the appellant that all amendments of 
pleadings should be allowed which are necessary for determination of the 
real controversies in the suit and that the amendment proposed by the 
F appellant was necessary for determining the real controversies in the suit 
and the Division Bench was not right in rejecting the application at the 
stage of amendment when it is settled law that the Court does not enter 
into merits at the stage of amendment. 
G 
Respondent, on the other hand, contended that amendment of a 
plaint will not be allowed if it seeks to introduce into the plaint a new and 
different case which is inconsistent with the case originally made out in 
the plaint or, if the amendment has not been moved bona fide or in good 
faith, but only for the purpose o

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