Back
A.K.SARKAR, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, V.RAMASWAMI
A. K Gupta And Sons LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Damodar Valley Corporation – Respondent
Key Points: - The amendment may be allowed if it does not introduce a new cause of action but provides a different or additional approach to the same facts (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The court may amend to determine the real question, balancing justice and prejudice; special circumstances can justify time-barred amendments, especially when the amended claim arises from the same cause of action and the plaintiff had pleaded the essential facts (!) (!) (!) (!) - The proviso to Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act requires a further relief to be prayed for a declaration; lack of such relief can render the suit non-maintainable, but amendments may be allowed if they clarify the real dispute and there are special circumstances, as evidenced by cited precedents (!) (!) (!) - The High Court’s decision to reject amendment and hold the suit non-maintainable was upheld in part; appellate remand could be warranted to allow appropriate amendment and adjudication of the proper clause interpretation and any consequential relief (!) (!) - In cases like Charan Das and L. J. Leach, amendments to claim money due or to alter reliefs have been allowed where the underlying contract/dispute remained the same and the amendment was necessary to determine the real controversy (!) (!) (!)
Judgment
SARKAR, J. (On behalf of himself and Ramaswami J.) : The question raised in this appeal is whether the High Court was in error in refusing permission to the appellant to amend its plaint. We think it was.
2. The appellant had done work for the respondent under a contract which only specified the rates for different categories of work. The contract contained the following clause: "This quotation is based on prevailing labour rate of Rs. 1-4-0 per cooly but if there is increase of labour rate of more than 10 per cent in any particular month the proportionate increase in rate will be charged". Subsequent to the making of the contract there was an increase in the labour rate per cooly by 20 per cent. The appellant claimed that under the clause it was entitled to the whole amount of the increase while the respondent contended that it was entitled to a part of it only. This was the only dispute between the parties in respect of the contract. There was no other dispute either concerning the quantity or quality of the work done or otherwise howsoever.
3. The appellant filed a suit against the respondent only claiming a declaration that on a proper interpretation of the clause it was
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
