Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2021 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURTNon-deposit of C-Forms - application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC - HELD THAT:- As per Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out. In MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD. VERSUS REGENCY CONVENTION CENTRE & HOTELS PVT. LTD. & ORS. [2010 (7) TMI 1159 - SUPREME COURT] the Supreme Court stated that the general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. The impleadment of a party can be on the basis that it is a necessary or a proper party to the proceedings. A necessary party is one against whom the plaintiff seeks relief or in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed. A proper party is one against whom relief may not be sought but whose presence is essential for the determination of the questions involved in the suit. A reading of the clauses of the agreement between the respondent no.1/plaintiff and respondent no.2/defendant no.1 clearly demonstrates that the said agreement was on a principal-to-principal basis and the liability to make payment towards the goods supplied was that of the respondent no.2/defendant no.1. Clause 4 of the said agreement specifies that it is the respondent no.2/defendant no.1 who shall be responsible for default in the deposit of C Forms to the respondent no.1/plaintiff, even if the forms could be submitted by the respondent no.2/defendant no.1 or petitioner/defendant no.2 - taking into account the pleadings of the respondent no.1/plaintiff before the Trial Court and the conduct of the respondent no.1/plaintiff before this Court, it is found that neither was any relief sought by the respondent no.1/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant no.2 nor was there a cause of action pleaded in respect of the petitioner/defendant no.2. The petitioner/defendant no.2 is neither a proper nor a necessary party to the suit. Accordingly, there is a manifest error in the impugned order passed by ADJ, which warrants interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The only person interested in impleadment of the petitioner/defendant no.2 is the respondent no.2/defendant no.1 in order to avoid/reduce its liability, which may arise under the suit. The impleadment of the petitioner/defendant no.2 is not necessary to decide the issues raised in the plaint - Petition allowed.
|