Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 800
High Court of Delhi
REVA KHETRAPAL & PRATIBHA RANI, JJ.
SNP Punj & Another
Versus
Punj Star Industries Pvt. Ltd.
RFA(OS) 120 of 2010
Decided on : 10-07-2013.
For the Appellants:J.P. Sengh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Gurkamal, Sumeet Batra, Ms. Ankita Gupta, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Naresh K.Thanai, Advocate.
Headnote:
Impleadment - Dispute arising out of family business - Order 41 Rule 20 CPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Order 41 Rule 20 CPC, Section 151 CPC - The court discussed the power of the Appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 20 and Section 151 CPC to implead a party in the appeal, and the circumstances in which this discretion can be exercised. The court referred to various legal provisions and their interpretations to decide on the impleadment of Atna Engineering Pvt. Ltd. as a respondent in the present appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute arising out of family business run by Punj brothers, where the control of various companies was shared after a family settlement. The plaintiff sought to hold defendants No.2 & 3 liable for acts of misfeasance committed when the plaintiff company was under their control. The defendants contested the liability, and the court held them jointly and severally liable to pay the amount to the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the application to implead Atna Engineering Pvt. Ltd. as respondent No.2 in the present appeal, citing the necessity to avoid conflicting judgments and to ensure a fair adjudication of the cause on the merits.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should exercise the discretion to implead Atna Engineering Pvt. Ltd. as a respondent in the present appeal, considering the conflicting claims and the potential prejudice to the proposed party's interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Order 41 Rule 20 CPC and Section 151 CPC, and the application of legal principles to ensure a fair adjudication of the cause on the merits.
Final Decision: The application to implead Atna Engineering Pvt. Ltd. as respondent No.2 in the present appeal was allowed, subject to costs, and notice was issued to the newly impleaded respondent No.2.
Pratibha Rani, J.
1. CS(OS) No.4607/1992 was filed by M/s. Punjstar Industries Pvt. Ltd. (respondent herein) against three defendants, namely, Atna Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Shri SNP Punj and Shri Uday Punj. While Atna Engineering Pvt. Ltd. was sued as defendant No.1, Shri SNP Punj and Shri Uday Punj were impleaded as defendants No.2 & 3, in their capacity as Managing Director and Director respectively.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in the civil suit, the appellants, that is, Shri S.N.P.Punj and his son Shri Uday Punj have preferred the present appeal bearing RFA(OS) No.120/2010 impugning the judgment and decree in the above suit.
3. In consonance with the plea taken in the written statement, in the present appeal also, the appellants (defendants No.2 & 3 in the suit) have not described themselves as Managing Director/Director of Atna Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
4. On the notice of the appeal being served, the respondent questioned the maintainability of the appeal as the defendant No.1 company was not impleaded as a party in the appeal.
5. C.M.No.2172/2011 under Section 151 read with Order 41 Rule 20 CPC which is being disposed of by us by this order, has been filed in view of the objection taken by the respondent challenging the maintainability of the appeal without impleading Atna Engineering Pvt. Ltd. as a party in the present appeal.
6. The appellants have invoked the power of this Court under Section 151 CPC read with Order 41 Rule 20 CPC to implead Atna Engineering Pvt. Ltd. as respondent No.2 in the present appeal. Amended memo of parties to this effect was also annexed with this application.
7. Instant matter pertains to a dispute arising out of family business being run by Punj brothers. As per averments made in the plaint, Punjstar Industries Pvt. Ltd. (plaintiff) was earlier controlled by the defendants No.2 & 3 and later after the arbitration award and family settlement, the control of various companies was shared by Punj brothers and their families in terms of settlement which was entered into and implemented. Prior to the settlement, the control of the plaintiff company being in the hands of defendants No.2 & 3, they have been now sought to be made liable for the acts of misfeasance committed at that time. It is further the case of the plaintiff that after the family settlement Atna Engineering Pvt. Ltd. came to the share of defendants No.2 & 3.
8. The respondent Punjstar Industries Pvt. Ltd. (plaintiff in the suit) strongly opposed the prayer made by the appellants not only on the ground of limitation but also for the reason that decree against Atna Engineering Pvt. Ltd. has attained finality and prejudice shall be caused to the answering respondent in case Atna Engineering Pvt. Ltd. is impleaded as respondent in the present appeal at this stage.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also considered the oral/written submissions put forth by them.
10. Perusal of the record reveals that the present application (C.M.No.2172/2011) was necessitated as on 07.12.2010, during the course of hearing of the appeal the respondent questioned the maintainability of the appeal without impleading defendant No.1 Atna Engineering Pvt. Ltd. as a party. The appellants while maintaining their stand that no relief has been sought against Atna Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and it was not necessary to implead Atna Engineering as a party, to avoid any technical objection by the respondent, sought permission of this Court to implead Atna Engineering Pvt. Ltd. as respondent in the present appeal.
11. On behalf of the appellants, Mr.J.P.Sengh, learned senior counsel submitted that this Court has ample power under Order 41 Rule 20 and under Section 151 CPC to implead Atna Engineering Pvt. Ltd. as a party in this appeal. It has been further submitted by him that the objection raised by the respondent invited this application. Shri J.P.Sengh urged that when th
