Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Tri Companies Law - 2017 (3) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1561 - Tri - Companies LawApplication seeking permission to carry out the amendment (MA 90/2016) - Prevention of Oppression and Mismanagement- Held that:- To resolve this controversy, perused Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, wherein "Amendment of pleadings" are prescribed, which says that Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner as may be jest and necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. It is a trite law that this exception is prescribed to facilitate the proceedings, if found necessary and helpful in determining the question in controversy. The amendment must not be allowed if it would result in introducing a new case or a fresh cause of action. It can also not be allowed if it would allegedly change the very nature of the Suit. Keeping brevity in mind, to sum up the controversy, it can be safely adjudged that while deciding such type of prayers a Tribunal can avoid to adopt a hyper-technical approach. Instead, a liberal approach can facilitate the speedy disposal of pending disputes. Sometimes, technicalities hamper the Courts in the administration of justice. For that very purpose, to avoid the technical or lengthy procedure the Tribunals have been constituted. Humbly, it is further to be added that while disposing of the pending litigation the Tribunal is not bound by the lengthy procedure, either laid down in CPC or other Act, but at best be guided by the principles of natural justice. As far as this case is concerned, the Petitioner was not sleeping over its rights. That the effect of acknowledgement or the knowledge of the event as prescribed u/s. 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is also prima facie missing in this case because the knowledge of the said event is the bone of contention in this litigation. Undisputedly, the Main Petition under consideration has been filed u/s. 241 of the Companies Act, 2013 i.e. under the Chapter "Prevention of Oppression and Mismanagement", which has not concluded or stopped or exhausted in this case in a particular year, rather in continuance; hence out of question of period of limitation. Be that as it is, the issue of applicability of Limitation Act is open as far as the maintainability of the main Petition is concerned. As a result, the Application seeking permission to carry out the amendment (MA 90/2016) is hereby allowed with a direction to serve the Amended Petition to the other side within 15 days on receipt of this Order. Thereafter, the litigants are directed to complete the pleadings earliest possible. The Petition is now listed for hearing on 10th April, 2017.
|