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

2024 Supreme(Cal) 1201

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
KRISHNA RAO, J.
AD Electrosteel Co. Private Limited - Plaintiff
Versus
Greco International Limited & Anr. - Defendants
GA No. 1 of 2023 In CS-COM No. 470 of 2024 (Old No. CS 35 of 2023)
Decided On : 12-07-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Plaintiff : Mr. Shaunak Ghosh, Mr. Rajib Mullick, Ms. Ayantika Saha.
For the Defendant : Mr. Satadeep Bhattacharyya, Mr. Ayan Dutta, Ms. Tiana Bhattacharyya, Mr. Mehboob Rahman.

IMPORTANT POINT
A party is not necessary for adjudication if their presence does not affect the plaintiff's ability to prove its case independently.

Headnote:

Inspection - Defendant - Order I, Rule 10 - The court interpreted the provisions of Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, determining that the defendant no. 2 was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit, leading to its removal from the proceedings.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit against defendant no. 1 for payment related to couplers manufactured and inspected by defendant no. 2. The plaintiff claimed that defendant no. 2's inspection report was crucial for the case, despite not seeking relief against defendant no. 2.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plaintiff's reliance on defendant no. 2's inspection report did not necessitate its presence in the suit, as the plaintiff must prove its case independently.

Issues: Whether defendant no. 2 is a necessary or proper party to the suit for effective adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: A party can be added to a suit if their presence is necessary for a complete and final decision; however, the plaintiff must prove its case independently without relying solely on another party's report.

Result: The name of defendant no. 2 is deleted from the suit.

JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. Defendant no.2 has filed the present application being G.A. No. 1 of 2023 for rejection of plaint against the defendant no. 2 or in the alternative to delete the name of the defendant no. 2 from the array of the party in the plaint filed in CS-COM 470 of 2024 (Old No. C.S. 35 of 2023). In the plaint, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree against the defendant no. 1 for a sum of USD 1,40,235.00 and USD 600 Per month on account of storage and security charges against the defendant no.1 and other prayers including interest. Admittedly in any of the prayer of the suit, the plaintiff has not prayed for any relief against the defendant no. 2.

2. As per the case made out by the plaintiff, after negotiation between the plaintiff and defendant no.1, defendant no.1 issued purchased order upon the plaintiff on 18th June, 2019 of 100 sets (100 units each of male and female) of Non-Shock MCA DA Type Coupler (Drawing No. 27413/11) supplied as complete units -complaint equivalent Coupler sets (Paris) as per plaintiffs drawing No. ADE 09-53 and for the consideration of USD 430,000.00 with several terms and conditions out of which one condition that the inspection by Bureau Veritas or SGS, being the defendant no.2 herein at the plaintiff’s factory before shipment.

3. The plaintiff has made the following averments in the plaint with respect to the defendant no.2 :

    “3. The defendant no. 2 is inter-alia engaged in providing services of inspection, testing, verification and certification with tremendous infrastructure throughout the world. The defendant No. 2 carries on business from Ecospace, Block 3A, 2nd Floor, East Wing, 11/F/II, Action Area-II, Rajarhat, Newtown, Kolkata-7000160 outside the jurisdiction aforesaid.

9.(e) Inspection: By Bureau Veritas or SGS, being the Defendant no. 2 herein at the Plaintiffs factory before shipment.

38. Ultimately, on January 31, 2020, the plaintiff received an email from the defendant no. 1, which was issued from its office outside the jurisdiction aforesaid and which was received by the plaintiff within the jurisdiction aforesaid, wherefrom it appeared that the defendant no. 1 had appointed the defendant no. 2 as the inspecting agents for inspection of the finished goods under the Purchase Order dated June 18, 2019 in place and instead of RITES.

39. By an email dated February 11, 2020 the defendant no. 1 inter-alia requested the defendant no. 2 to send its most experienced inspectors having good knowledge of couplers to inspect the couplers manufactured by the plaintiff. Such request was made by the defendant no. 1 to ensure that the couplers manufactured by the plaintiff were in accordance with the original Drawing No. 27413 /11 and the manufacturers drawing No. ADE/09-53 that was approved by the defendant no. 1's client, i.e. Tanzanian Railways. The defendant no. 1 by its email dated February 14, 2020 had forwarded the said email dated February 13, 2020 to the plaintiff.

40. The defendant no. 2 on February 17, 2020 caused inspection of the 1st lot of 50 sets of couplers at the plaintiff's plant, outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The defendant no. 2 handed over a copy of the inspection report to the plaintiff. The plaintiff by its email dated February 17, 2020 inter-alia forwarded the inspection report to the defendant no. 1 and requested the said defendant to provide details of the shipping agent. The plaintiff further informed the defendant no. 1 the dimensions of the containers required for transportation of the said couplers.

50. After manufacturing the balance 33 sets of couplers, the plaintiff duly requested the defendant no. 1 to have the same inspected by the defendant no. 2, its inspectors and take delivery of the same. On June 27, 2020, the defendant no. 1 duly informed the plaintiff that it had instructed the defendant no. 2 to cause the inspection of the balance quantity of 33 sets of couplers and the same would be conducted on or after July 10, 2020. When the P

      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