Back
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Universal MEP Projects & Engineering Services Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
INA Energy Private Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Harpreet Singh Brar, J.
CM-7-FACOM-2023
Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 37 days in filing the appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by the affidavit of Mr. Arun Tandon authorized person of the appellant, the application is allowed and delay of 37 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
FAO-COM-3-2023 (O &M)
The appellant has filed the present appeal against the order dated 29.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Commercial Court), Gurugram, whereby, an application filed by the appellant under Order 1, Rule 10 read with section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') seeking its deletion from the array of parties and rejection of the plaint qua the appellant, was dismissed.
Factual Background
2. The facts emanating from the record are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the suit bearing CS No.4/2022 titled as ' M/s INA Energy Private Limited v. M/s Samaarambh Solar Power Pvt. Ltd. and another' seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.1,23,85,527/- from the respondent No.2/defendant No.1 as per the Joint Venture and Service Agreement dated 08.06.2018 executed between the respondents No
The court emphasized that necessary and proper parties must be included for effective adjudication, and the trial court erred in denying the petitioners' impleadment.
A party cannot be impleaded in an ongoing suit against the wishes of the plaintiff unless they are deemed a necessary or proper party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
Addition of necessary party in suit – Plaintiffs are dominus litis and they cannot be compelled to add a party to defend suit against their wishes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. and the principles regarding impleadment of parties as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the discretion to determine whether a party is necessary for effective adjudication of the issues involved in the suit, and the ....
The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between necessary and proper parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, emphasizing that even if a party is not necessary, their presence c....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the computation of the delay period in filing the chamber appeal.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
