Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 7615 of 2002
PETITIONER:
T.N. ALLOY FOUNDRY CO. LTD
RESPONDENT:
T.N. ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/02/2004
BENCH:
V.N. KHARE CJ & S.B. SINHA & S.H. KAPAD1A
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2004(2) SCR 352
The Order of the Court was delivered
The appellant herein is incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and
started its commercial production in the year 1982. It appears that
subsequently it became sick. It is alleged that the appellant-Company could
not run because of non-supply of electrical energy by the respondents
herein. It is under such circumstances, the appellant herein filed a suit
for damages against respondents for the damage suffered during the period
commencing from 28th March, 1983 to 16th October, 1992. The said suit was
filed sometime in March, 1993 on the Original Side of the Madras High
Court. In July. 1998, the appellant herein filed an interlocutory
application for amendment of the plaint. By the said application for
amendment, the appellant sought to enhance its claim for damages. The
learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the amendment, as prayed
for. The respondents herein went in appeal before the Letters Patent Bench
before the High Court and the Bench set aside the order of the learned
Single Judge and allowed the appeal. It is against the said order and
judgment, the appellant is in appeal before us.
Shri T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant,
urged that the view taken by the High Court in rejecting the amendment of
the appellant was erroneous. The law as regards permitting amendment to the
plaint, is well settled. In L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd and Anr. v. Messrs
Jardine Skinner and Co., AIR (1957) SC 357 = [1957] SCR 438, it was held
that the Court as a rule decline to allow amendments, if a fresh suit on
the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of the
application. But that is a factor to be taken into account in exercise of
the discretion as to whether amendment should be ordered and does not
affect the power of the Court to order it.
It is not disputed that the appellate court has a co-extensive power of the
trial court. We find that the discretion exercise by the High Court in
rejecting the plaint was in conformity with law.
For the aforesaid reason, we do not find any merit in the appeal. It fails
and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.