Karnataka High Court
M/S Samrakshana Electricals Limited vs Mac Charles (India) Limited on 6 January, 2014
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA
WRIT PETITION No.34934/2013 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/s.Samrakshana Electricals Limited,
A company incorporated under the
Companies Act, registered office at
No.127, Hydrebad, Kukatpally,
Hyderabad - 500 072
Andhra Pradesh.
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory
Mr.P.Ravi Babu. ...Petitioner
(By Sri.S.K.V.Chalpathy, Sr.Counsel for
Sri.V.Sanjay Krishna, Adv.,)
AND:
Mac Charles (India) Limited,
A company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 having its
Registered office at P.B.No.174,
No.28, Sankey Road, Bangalore - 560 052.
Rep. by its Company Secretary
Mr.C.S.Reddy ...Respondent
(By Sri.B.S.Satyanand, Adv.,)
********
-2-
This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 6.3.13,
passed by the Learned XXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge at Bangalore (CCH-33) on IA No.5 in Ex.Case
No.1292/2008, produced herewith under Ann-L.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following:-
ORDER
In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the order dated 6.3.2013, passed by the 23rd Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore, in Execution Case No.1292/2008 on I.A.No.5 vide Annexure-L.
2. By the impugned order at Annexure-L, the Executing Court has allowed I.A.No.5 filed by the respondent under sections 152, 153 r/w section 151 of CPC.
3. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. Briefly stated the facts are:
-3-
The respondent had filed suit in O.S.No.2030/2002 for recovery of a sum of `.34,54,286/- against M/s India Meters Limited. The suit came to be decreed on 25.9.2007. Thereafter, the respondent has filed execution petition in Ex. Case No.1292/2008 to execute the decree passed in O.S.No.2030/2002. In the meanwhile, M/s.India Meters Ltd., has been amalgamated with the petitioner company vide order dated 8.4.2010 passed in the Company Petition. Thereafter, the respondent has filed I.A.No.5 under sections 152, 153 r/w section 151 of CPC to amend the cause title in the plaint, judgment and decree and also the execution petition. The Executing Court has allowed I.A.No.5. Therefore, this writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the Executing Court has erred while allowing I.A.No.5 and permitting the respondent to amend the cause title in the plaint and judgment and decree. By order dated -4- 8.4.2010, M/s.India Meters Limited has been amalgamated with the petitioner company. On the date of amalgamation, only execution proceedings were pending. Therefore, the Executing Court was not justified in permitting the respondent to amend the cause title in the plaint and judgment and decree. He also submitted that under sections 152 and 153 of CPC it is only clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders which can be corrected. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 8 SCC page 147.
6. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the Executing Court taking into consideration that the judgment debtor company i.e., M/s.India Meters Limited has been amalgamated with the petitioner company vide order dated 8.4.2010 passed in the company petition has permitted the respondent to amend the cause title in the plaint, judgment and decree and also -5- the execution petition and therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
8. The point that arises for my consideration is:
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Executing Court was justified in permitting the respondent to amend the cause title in the plaint, judgment and decree and execution petition ?
9. It is relevant to note, the respondent had filed suit in O.S.No.2030/2002 against M/s.India Meters Limited for recovery of a sum of `.34,54,286/-. It came to be decreed on 25.9.2007. The respondent has filed Execution Petition in Ex. Case No.1292/2008, on 5.8.2008, to execute the decree passed in O.S.No.2030/2002. Thereafter, on 8.4.2010, by virtue of the order passed by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Company Petition No.199/2009, M/s.India Meters Limited i.e., the judgment debtor company has been -6- amalgamated with the petitioner company. One of the conditions of amalgamation is that all liabilities and duties of the transferor company be transferred without further act or deed to the transferee company and all proceedings now pending against the transferor company be continued by or against the transferee company. It is clear, pending proceedings can be continued against the petitioner company.
10. The respondent has filed application under Sections 152, 153 r/w Section 151 of CPC to amend the cause title in the plaint, judgment and decree and also the execution petition. When amalgamation was ordered, it was only the execution proceedings which was pending. Therefore, the respondent can continue the execution proceedings against the petitioner. It does not mean the respondent can amend the cause title of the plaint and judgment and decree which was already concluded. Therefore, the Executing Court was not justified in permitting the respondent to amend the cause title in the plaint and judgment and decree. Under sections 152 and 153 of CPC what can be corrected is clerical -7- or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders. Therefore, the Executing Court was not justified in permitting the respondent to amend the cause title in the plaint and judgment and decree. However, by virtue of the order passed in the company petition the respondent can continue the execution proceedings against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order needs to be modified accordingly.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Executing Court insofar as it relates to permitting the respondent to amend the cause title in the plaint and judgment and decree is concerned, it is hereby set aside. The respondent can continue the execution proceedings against the petitioner in terms of the order passed in the Company Petition and in accordance with law.
I.A.1/2013 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Dvr: