SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Bom) 1492

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
K.R. SHRIRAM, J.
Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. - Plaintiff
Versus
Annamma Philip, the Trustee of Idichandy Family Trust, a Private Family Trust & Others - Defendants
Chamber Summons Nos. 6 of 2015, 8 of 2015, 544 of 2016, 546 of 2016 with Notice of Motion Nos. 2227 of 2016, 2250 of 2016 in Suit Nos. 2177 of 2001, 2178 of 2001
Decided On : 19-09-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Plaintiff :Shyam Mehta, senior Advocate a/w. Aditya Bapat, Faisal Sayyed, Prerna Gandhi i/b. M/s. Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co., Advocates.
For the Defendants :Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate a/w. Pranav Desai, Vishal Mehta, Vidhi Patel i/b. MV Law Partners, Advocates.

The right to make an application under Order 22 Rule 10 accrues 'from day to day' and can be made at any time during the pendency of a suit, without a prescribed time limit.

Headnote:

Amendment - Trustees - Order 22 Rule 10

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs sought leave to amend the plaint to bring on record new Trustees and to reflect a change in the plaintiff's name. Defendants opposed the proposed amendments citing inordinate delay and misleading statements in the affidavit.

Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the chamber summons for amendment, emphasizing that the right to make an application under Order 22 Rule 10 accrues 'from day to day' and can be made at any time during the pendency of a suit. The court also directed the plaintiffs to pay costs to the respondents.

Issues: Inordinate delay in seeking amendment, misleading statements in the affidavit, and the requirement to bring all Trustees on record.

Ratio Decidendi: Order 22 Rule 10 allows for the continuation of a suit against a party whose interest has devolved during the pendency of the suit, without prescribing a time limit for the application. The court emphasized the need for effective consideration and disposal of the suit by bringing all Trustees on record.

Final Decision: The chamber summons for amendment was allowed, and the plaintiffs were directed to pay costs to the respondents.

JUDGMENT :

1. Plaintiffs have taken out this chamber summons for leave to amend the plaint as per the Schedule annexed to the chamber summons.

2. Plaintiffs have filed this suit for specific performance. Plaintiffs, as set out in the plaint have dealt with the then Trustees of the Trust, viz., Idichandy Family Trust and PTM Family Trust as defendant nos.8 and 9. There are reliefs also sought against the Trusts for recovering certain amounts.

3. The present chamber summons is taken out to bring on record the new Trustees of the Idichandy Family Trust and PTM Family Trust as defendant nos.8 and 9. The chamber summons is also taken out to bring on record the demise of defendant nos.5 and 6, who were the erstwhile settler and trustee of PTM Family Trust. Plaintiffs also seek to bring on record the new name of plaintiffs, which has changed from “Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited” to “ECGC Limited”.

4. Mr. Sancheti, senior counsel submitted that respondents have no objection to the amendment as mentioned in I (i), (ii), (iii) and III of the Schedule but strongly opposed the rest of the proposed amendments prayed for.

5. It is averred in the affidavit in support that plaintiffs were intimated about the demise of defendant no.5 vide letter dated 17th June, 2003 by the Advocate for defendants, wherein it was stated that defendant no.5 has expired on 30th October, 2002. Plaintiffs were also informed of the demise of defendant no.6 by the Advocates for defendants vide letter dated 28th August, 2003. It is the case of plaintiffs that in order to ascertain the names of the present Turstees of the said Trusts, plaintiffs through their Advocate addressed a letter dated 13th March, 2014 to the Advocate for defendants to furnish the details of the present Trustees of the respective Trusts and the Advocate received a letter dated 1st April, 2014 from the Advocate for defendants furnishing the names of the present Trustees of Idichandy Family Trust, i.e., respondent nos.1 and 2. It is also stated that by the said letter, they were also informed that respondents were also the Trustees of PTM Family Trust. Therefore, plaintiffs are seeking to delete the name of defendant nos.5 and 6 who have since expired and to bring on record respondents as defendant nos.8 and 9 as Trustees of the two Trusts.

6. It was submitted by Mr. Sancheti that (a) there has been an inordinate delay on the part of plaintiffs of more than 8 years and 2 months and (b) there is no explanation whatsoever in the affidavit in support as to why plaintiffs did not file this present chamber summons earlier. It was also submitted that the averments of plaintiffs in paragraphs 8 and 11 of the affidavit in support indicate that only in 2014 they were informed about the change is misleading because by letters of 17th June, 2003 and 28th August, 2003 plaintiffs were informed about the demise of defendant nos.5 and 6 and that respondents are the only Trustees of both the Trusts. It was also submitted that plaintiffs have also vide letter dated 11th October, 2003 responded to the letter dated 28th August, 2003 and sought inspection of the Trust Deeds. It was also submitted that even in the written statement on behalf of defendants filed in the year 2005 it was stated that defendant no.5 expired on 30th October, 2002 and defendant no.6 expired long ago and that these facts were brought to plaintiffs notice by defendants' Advocates letter dated 28th August, 2003. It was also submitted that the written statement indicates that defendant nos.1 and 2 ceased to be Trustees of Idichandy Family Trust long ago and presently respondents are the only Trustees of Idichandy Family Trust.

7. Mr. Sancheti submitted that even the affidavit in reply in notice of motion no.1487 of 2001 and further affidavit gave the same facts but still plaintiffs did not move with alacrity. Mr. Sancheti further submitted that plaintiffs have also provided photocopies of the minutes of the meeting of the Trustee
























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top