Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal vs K. K. Modi - 2006 Supreme(Raj) 798

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(Raj) 798

H.K.SEMA, A.R.LAKSHMANAN
Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal – Appellant
Versus
K. K. Modi – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Advocate, B.L. Wali, Ms. Inklee Barooah and Ms. Bina Gupta, Advocates, with him, for Appellants S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate, Praveen Bahadur, Ms. Meghalee Barthakur, Rajan Narain, Ms. Kanika Gomber, Ms. Bharti Badesra, Ms. Rupa Barmola and

Judgement Key Points

What is the scope of Amendment of Pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in determining the real controversy? What is the appropriate test to decide whether an amendment should be allowed without considering merits at the amendment stage? What are the consequences of misapprehending the real controversy or entering into merits while deciding on amendments?

Key Points: - Point 1 (!) (!) - Point 2 (!) (!) (!) - Point 3 (!) (!)

What is the scope of Amendment of Pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in determining the real controversy?

What is the appropriate test to decide whether an amendment should be allowed without considering merits at the amendment stage?

What are the consequences of misapprehending the real controversy or entering into merits while deciding on amendments?

Honble DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.–The above appeals were filed against the final order dated 27.8.2001 passed by the High Court of Delhi in FAO (OS) No. 35/2000 and C.M. No. 387/2001 whereby the High Court of Delhi allowed the appeal of the respondents.

(2). The short facts of the case are as follows:

By a Deed of Trust dated 1.5.1979, a Trust in the name and style of Modipon Limited Senior Executives (Officers) Welfare Trust was formed. The said Trust was formed for the general benefit of employees employed in the Fibre Division only of Modipon Limited and the purpose was to provide benefits to such employees and dependent members of their families particularly for the purposes of giving them education, medical relief, facilities for sports, cultural and other activities on sound, permanent and organized basis.

(3). The appellants are beneficiaries of Modipon Limited Senior Executive (Officers) Welfare Trust. The respondents (defendant Nos. 1-4) are Trustees of the Trust and respondent No. 5 is the Secretary of the Trust. The Trust purchased 19.314 equity shares of Godfrey Philips (India) Limited (in short `GPI) in the name of respondent No.1 in his capacity as a trustee of the Trust. GP

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(Raj) 798

H.K.SEMA, A.R.LAKSHMANANRajesh Kumar Aggarwal – AppellantVersusK. K. Modi – Respondent

What is the scope of Amendment of Pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in determining the real controversy?

What is the appropriate test to decide whether an amendment should be allowed without considering merits at the amendment stage?

What are the consequences of misapprehending the real controversy or entering into merits while deciding on amendments?

Cases Referred (7)

H.K.SEMA, A.R.LAKSHMANAN
Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal – Appellant
Versus
K. K. Modi – Respondent