M/S.R.STAHL PRIVATE LIMITED vs J.K.MAHAPATRA

Court
Madras High Court

OSA No. 225 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GK. MUTHUKUMAAR
O.S.A. No. 225 of 2024
CNR: {HCMA012029332024}
M/s.R.Stahl Private Limited,
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,
th
SKCL Central Square-II, 4 Floor,
Unit Nos.B-20, B-21, CIPET Road,
SIDCO Thiru-vi-ka Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Mr.J.K.Mahapatra,
S/o.Nimai Saran,
B-15, B-Block Rajaparis,
Manasarovar Apartments,
Mount-Medavakkam Main Road,
Ullagaram, Chennai-.600 091.
2. Mr.Thomas Wittek,
Managing Director,
M/s.R.Stahl Pvt. Ltd.
Plot No.5, Malrosapuram Main Road,
Sengundram Ind. Area, Singaperumal Koil,
Chengalpettu District- 603 204.
3. Mr.Mohanvel Jaychandran,
Vice President Human Resource,
M/s.R.Stahl Pvt. Ltd.
Plot No.5, Malrosapuram Main Road,
Sengundram Ind. Area, Singaperumal Koil,
Chengalpettu District-603 204.
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 12:21:44 pm )

OSA No. 225 of 2024
4. Mr.Muthuselvam,
M/s.R.Stahl Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot No.5, Malrosapuram Main Road,
Sengundram Ind. Area, Singaperumal Koil,
Chengalpettu District-603 204.
5. Mr.Sathish Arumugam,
M/s.R.Stahl Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot No.5, Malrosapuram Main Road,
Sengundram Ind. Area, Singaperumal Koil,
Chengalpettu District-603 204.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of The Original
Side Rules read with Clause 15 of The Letters Patent, praying to set aside the
impugned order dated 16.08.2024, made in A.No.2266 of 2024 in C.S.No.95 of
2022.
For Appellant(s): Mr.P.S.Sashank
for M/s.R and P Partners
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.M.Deenadayalan for R1
R2 to R5 – No appearance
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by GK. Muthukumaar, J.)
The present Original Side Appeal has been filed by the first defendant,
challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 16.08.2024 passed in A.No.2266 of
2024 in C.S.No.95 of 2022 on the file of the Original Side of this Court.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per
their array in the suit.
__________
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 12:21:44 pm )

OSA No. 225 of 2024
3. The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking recovery of damages to the tune
of Rs.One Crore from the defendant along with consequential reliefs. The
defendant has filed a written statement, issues have been framed and the matter
is at the trial stage, before the Master for recording evidence. PW1 is in the
witness box and has filed a proof affidavit. It is seen from the records that no
documents have been marked through PW1. At this juncture, the plaintiff filed
A.No.2266 of 2024 in the suit, seeking amendment of the plaint by including
paragraph 16 and an additional prayer in paragraph 27 of the plaint prayer
portion, seeking a declaration that the letter of termination of employment dated
09.03.2021 is null and void.
4. The defendant filed a counter affidavit opposing this application. After
hearing both parties, the Learned Single Judge allowed the application, subject
to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- payable to the defendant's counsel, and
permitted the proposed amendment to be carried out.
5. We have heard the submissions of Mr.P.S.Sashank, Learned Counsel
for the appellant, and Mr.S.M.Deenadayalan, Learned Counsel for the
respondent and perused the materials on record.
6. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the
Learned Single Judge was right in allowing the amendment sought for at the
trial stage.
__________
Page 3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 12:21:44 pm )

OSA No. 225 of 2024
7. To address this point, it becomes necessary to examine the nature of
the amendment sought for by the plaintiff. Upon perusal of the affidavit filed in
support of the amendment application in A.No.2266 of 2024, we find that the
plaintiff seeks to incorporate a prayer for a declaration to the effect that the
alleged letter of termination of employment dated 09.03.2021 is invalid, null
and void. To substantiate the newly sought relief, the plaintiff also seeks to
incorporate additional averments in the plaint by including a separate paragraph.
8. Upon perusal of the plaint, the nature of the amendments sought, and
the reasons for the amendment as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the
amendment application, we find that the proposed amendment does not
introduce a new cause of action nor does it affect the existing cause of action.
9. The plaintiff has averred in its affidavit that the paragraphs sought to
be included in the plaint by virtue of the proposed amendment were not
incorporated at the time of filing the plaint due to an inadvertent oversight. The
plaintiff has also stated that the proposed amendment is necessary for a better
appreciation of the facts and to explain the basis for arriving at the quantum of
damages. We therefore find that the proposed amendment neither affects the
existing cause of action nor introduces a new cause of action. It is only
explanatory in nature and is intended to facilitate the determination of the
__________
Page 4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 12:21:44 pm )

OSA No. 225 of 2024
quantum of compensation sought in the suit in relation to the existing prayer in
paragraph 30(a) of the plaint.
10. It is settled law that the amendments which are necessary for
determining the real issues in controversy between the parties ought to be
allowed, irrespective of the stage at which they are sought, provided that no
prejudice is caused to the opposite party.
11. In this instant case, we find that by allowing the proposed
amendment, there is no necessity to recast the issues.
12. We find that the proposed amendments will not affect the cause of
action. Therefore, they do not amount to introducing a new case nor do they
affect the trial. Hence we find that in the interest of justice and for determining
the real issue in controversy involved in the suit, it is necessary to allow the
proposed amendment.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Duggireddy Narayana
Reddy vs. Duggireddy Venkatanaraya Reddy and Others , reported in (2001) 8
SC 115 at paragraph 9 held that an amendment should be allowed unless it is
shown that permitting such an amendment would be unjust or cause prejudice to
the opposite party, which cannot be compensated by costs or otherwise, or
__________
Page 5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 12:21:44 pm )

OSA No. 225 of 2024
would deprive the opposite party of a right that had accrued to it due to the lapse
of time.
14. In the light of the aforesaid Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
we find that none of the grounds warranting refusal of amendment are attracted,
and no prejudice would be caused to the defendant, in view of the amendment
being allowed. Further, no right of the defendant would be affected by allowing
the proposed amendment. The defendant has also been compensated by the
award of costs. Therefore, we uphold the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge
allowing the amendment application subject to payment of costs. Accordingly,
we dismiss this Original Side Appeal.
15. The award of costs shall be as mentioned above and the parties are
directed to bear their own costs in this appeal. Consequently, the connected
Civil Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
(N.S.K.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.)
30-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
PAM
__________
Page 6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 12:21:44 pm )

OSA No. 225 of 2024
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
GK.MUTHUKUMAAR, J.
PAM
O.S.A.No.225 of 2024
30-10-2026
__________
Page 7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 12:21:44 pm )