Back
2007(5) Supreme 792
Supreme Court of India
(From Special Court, Bombay)
Tarun Chatterjee & Markandey Katju, JJ.
Andhra Bank — Petitioner
versus
ABN Amro Bank N.V. and Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 2946 of 2007
[Arising out of SLP [C] No.10844 of 2007]
With
Appeal (civil) 2947 of 2007
[Arising out of SLP [C] No.10845 of 2007]
Decided on : 10-07-2007
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VI, rule 17 – While allowing an application for amendment of the pleadings, the Court cannot go into the question of merit of such amendment – The only question at the time of considering the amendment of the pleadings would be whether such amendment would be necessary for decision of the real controversy between the parties in the suit– That apart it is permissible in law to amend a written statement of the defendant by which only an additional ground of defence has been taken. (Paras 5 and 6)
C.A. No. 2947 of 2007 [Arising out of SLP 10845/2007].
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XIII, rule 3 – Special Court rejecting the application of the appellant in a suit for tendering in evidence an affidavit in chief of the plaintiff containing statements which were relevant and germane to the issues involved in the suit only on the ground that the affidavit did not contain any admission – Such a prayer of the appellant to tender in evidence of certain paragraph and affidavit in examination in chief of the appellant containing statements relevant and germane to the issues involved in the suit could not be rejected only on the ground that the same did not contain any admission. (Para 4)
Facts of the case :
Initially the suit was filed in the High Court of Delhi and was later transferred to the Special Court at Bombay constituted under the Special Court {Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities} Act 1992 where the suit is now pending decision. It has been alleged in the plaint by the respondent ABN Amro Bank that on 3rd March, 1992, the New Delhi Branch of the bank had ordered transfer of one lac numbers of 17% NPC Bonds of Rs.100/- from respondent No.2 at a price of Rs.97/-. It has been the further case of the ABM Amro bank in the plaint that the appellant had failed to deliver to the respondent bank the NPV bonds and instead on or about 18th March, 1992 respondent no.2 delivered to ABN Amro Bank the original letter of allotment No.0016 covering one lac 9% tax free IRFC bonds of the value of Rs.10 crores endorsed in blank along with contract note dated 9th March, 1992. Accordingly, the ABN Amro Bank has prayed for a decree for the amount mentioned hereinabove and for other incidental reliefs. In the written statement the appellant clearly denied the allegations made by the Bank. It is true long thereafter an application for amendment of the written statement was filed by the appellant in which the appellant sought to amend para 7 of the written statement by inserting a new para, namely, para 7A.
The prayer for amendment of the written statement was rejected by the Special Court by the impugned order.
Findings of the Court:
Rejection of amendment petition only on the ground of delay was not justified.
Such a prayer of the appellant to tender in evidence of certain paragraph and affidavit in examination in chief of the appellant containing statements relevant and germane to the issues involved in the suit could not be rejected only on the ground that the same did not contain any admission.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.—
1.Leave granted.
2.This appeal is directed against the order dated 13th April, 2007 passed by the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) at Bombay in Chamber Summons No.1 of 2007 in Suit No.3 of 1998 for recovery of Rs. 15,66,66,591/- with other incidental reliefs by which the application for amendment of the written statement filed at the instance of the appellant was rejected.
3.Initially the suit was filed in the High Court of Delhi and was later transferred to the Special Court at Bombay constituted under the Special Court {Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities} Act 1992 where the suit is now pending decision. It has been alleged in the plaint by the respondent ABN Amro Bank that on 3rd March, 1992, the New Delhi Branch of the bank had ordered transfer of one lac numbers of 17% NPC Bonds of Rs.100/- from respondent No.2 at a price of Rs.97/-. It has been the further case of the ABM Amro bank in the plaint that the appellant had failed to deliver to the respondent bank the NPV bonds and instead on or about 18th March, 1992 respondent no.2 delivered to ABN Amro Bank the original letter of allotment No.0016 covering one lac 9% tax free IRFC bonds of the value of Rs.10 crores endorsed in blank along with contract note dated 9th March, 1992. Accordingly, the ABN Amro Bank has prayed for a decree for the amount mentioned hereinabove and for other incidental reliefs. In the written statement the appellant clearly denied the allegations made by the Bank. It is true long thereafter an application for amendment of the written statement was filed by the appellant in which the appellant sought to amend para 7 of the written statement by inserting a new para, namely, para 7A which is as follows :
“Defendant No.1 says that the plaintiffs have admittedly agreed to purchase the said NPC bonds as also the said IRFC bonds as also allegedly paid the purchase price of the said bonds for and on behalf of their principal viz. the said Punjab Housing Development Board who is a disclosed principal. Defendant No.1 says and submits that the suit has been filed to enforce the said alleged agreement viz for recovery of the purchase price of the said NPC bonds by the plaintiff in its personal capacity. Defendant No.1 says and submits that the plaintiff cannot personally enforce the said alleged agreement entered into by the plaintiff on behalf of its principal. In the circumstances defendant No.1 submits that the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with costs.”
4.As noted herein earlier it is this prayer for amendment of the written statement which was rejected by the Special Court by the impugned order which is now under challenge in this appeal by special leave.
5.We have heard Mr. Rohit Kapadia, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel for the respondent. We have perused the original written statement as well as the application for amendment of the written statement. After going through the written statement and the application for amendment of the written statement, we are of the view that the amendment sought to be introduced by the appellant must be allowed. From a perusal of the impugned order of the Special Court we find basically that two grounds have been taken by the Special Court for rejecting the prayer for amendment of the written statement. The first ground is that considerable delay has been caused by the appellant in filing the application for amendment of the written statement. It is well settled that delay is no ground for refusal of prayer for amendment. Mr. Ganesh, appearing for ABN Amro Bank submits before us that by filing of such an application for amendment of the written statement which has been filed with long delay, the appellant sought to stall the hearing of the suit which has been fixed on 13th July, 2007. In response to this Mr. Kapadia, learned counsel for the appellant, s
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
