IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that amendments to the plaint should be allowed if necessary for effective adjudication of the controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Sachin Datta, J. - IA No.7955/2019 (under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, for amendment of the plaint read with Order I Rule 10 of CPC for impleadment of proposed defendant nos. 2 to 5, filed by the plaintiff)

1. The present application has been filed under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") seeking the following prayers:

"(a) Implead RHC Holdings Private Limited; Ranchem Private Limited; Malvinder Mohan Singh; and Shivinder Mohan Singh as party Defendants Nos. 2 to 5, respectively, in the present suit and permit describing of the present Defendant as Defendant No. 1;

(b) Allow amendment of the plaint in terms of the amendments proposed hereinabove in paragraph 9;

(c) Take on record, the plaint as amended and enclosed the present application;

(d) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice"

2. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff inter alia seeking that liquidation of four of the plaintiff's lien-free fixed deposits (FDs) by the defendant be declared to be illegal and praying for recovery of the said amount.

3. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint is that the plaintiff, at no point of time, had created any encumbrance by way of charge, lien, pledge or otherwise on the FDs opened with the defendant bank. It is averred in the plaint that several communications regarding the same were issued to the defendant and the defendant never disputed or denied the unencumbered nature of the plaintiff's FDs. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff was not a party to the alleged third party's loans and borrowings claimed to have been sanctioned by the defendant. It is further averred that liquidation of the plaintiff's FDs for closure of loans availed of by the third parties/borrowers is illegal and void.

4. It is averred in the present application that after filing of the present suit certain facts have come to light, particularly an interim order dated 14.03.2019 passed by SEBI on the basis of a forensic audit of Religare Enterprises Limited, which holds approximately 85.5% equity shareholding in the plaintiff, which shows that the defendant (now proposed to be defendant no.1) had colluded and conspired with other proposed defendant nos. 2 to 5, and misappropriated the plaintiff's FDs. It is averred that the said interim order demonstrates that no lien or security was created over the FDs but regardless thereof, loans were purportedly provided against the FDs by the defendant bank to the proposed defendant nos. 2 and 3. It is averred that on the day the FDs were created, the proposed defendant nos. 4 and 5 exercised an all-pervasive control over the affairs of the plaintiff. The proposed defendant nos. 2 and 3 are stated to be the promoter group entities i.e. majority owned and controlled by the proposed defendant nos. 4 and 5. It is further averred that on the date of institution of the suit neither the plaintiff nor Religare Enterprises Limited was significantly owned or controlled by either the proposed defendants or entities under their control. It is averred that the amendments and the proposed defendants are therefore necessary to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.

Submissions of the Parties

5. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the suit is at a nascent stage and issues are yet to be framed, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the defendant bank if the amendment sought is allowed. It is submitted that the amendments sought are necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties and do not in any manner, change the nature of the suit. It is further submitted that even in a situation where amendment/s have been sought belatedly, the same cannot be a ground to disallow the amendment/s, where the primary ingredient envisioned in Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, 1908 is cle