Delhi High Court - Orders
Daya Kishen Goel vs Ramesh Chandra Goel& Ors on 29 January, 2026
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 701/2017 & I.A. 241/2025, I.A. 1280/2010
DAYA KISHEN GOEL .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Siddhant Buxy and Ms. Anshika
Prakash, Advocates
versus
RAMESH CHANDRA GOEL& ORS .....Defendants
Through: Mr. P. D. Gupta, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Advocate
for D-1 & 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
ORDER
% 29.01.2026 I.A. 855/2018
1. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff seeks permission to withdraw the present application.
2. Permission, as sought for, is granted.
3. The application is disposed of as withdrawn.
I.A. 7241/20151. The present application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking amendment of the Plaint.
2. Paragraph Nos.11, 12, 13 and 14 of the application reads as under:
"11. The Plaintiff seeks liberty to amend the Plaint and incorporate the following paragraphs after Para 26 of the Plaint. The following Paras will be added in the Plaint by way of the present amendment:CS(COMM) 701/2017 Page 1 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/01/2026 at 20:45:22 "26A. The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ("CESTAT") vide its order dated April 5, 2011, allowed the appeal filed by the Defendant No.2 herein, i.e. Dinesh International Limited, against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Import), demanding duty of Rs.2,96,59,584/- from Defendant No.2 under the first proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act with interest thereon under Section 28AB of the Act.
26B. While setting aside the order of demand and allowing the appeal, the CESTAT remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Customs (Import) to undertake de novo adjudication of the dispute in accordance with law after giving the party a reasonable opportunity of adducing evidence and of being personally heard. Plaintiff believes that the said proceeding before the Commissioner is still pending adjudication.
26C. Further, after the filing of the present Suit, the Department of Trade and Taxes, GNCT, Delhi, passed an order of attachment of the aforesaid amount of approximately Rs.20 Crore lying deposited with this Hon'ble Court and to that effect filed an Affidavit dated April 19, 2011 in IA. No. 5335-36 of 2010 in the present Suit.
26D. In the said Application, the Department of Trade and Taxes stated that Defendant No.2 Company is liable to pay a sum of Rs.
40,34,52,496/- towards the arrears of the VAT. The impleadment application filed by the Department of Trade and Taxes was allowed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated November 21, 2012.CS(COMM) 701/2017 Page 2 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/01/2026 at 20:45:22 26E. Further, even the Income Tax Department has a demand of Rs. 1,81,86,674/- for recovery; whereof, it has moved an Application dated February 15, 2011, in the present Suit, seeking its impleadment and for restraining the parties from withdrawing the aforesaid amount of approximately Rs. 20 Crore, so that the said amount may be appropriated against the dues of Income Tax Departments.
26F. From the aforesaid subsequent facts, it is clear that there are substantial statutory demands/dues against the Defendant No.2 Company. It is also stated that the Agreement dated June 8, 2006, for which the present injunction Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff, stipulates division of amounts inter-se parties as well as discharge of statutory liabilities.
26G. As stated herein above, the Plaintiff apprehends that if the aforesaid amount of approximately Rs. 20 Crore alongwith the interest earned is released to M/s Dinesh International Limited, then it is every possibility that the Defendant No. 1, 3 & 4, who are controlling the affairs of M/s Dinesh International Limited, may siphon off the entire amount, and the statutory dues remain unpaid.
26H. It is further stated that the Defendant No.2 Company was entirely managed by the Defendant Nos. 3 and 4, i.e. Mr. Varun Goel and Mr. Vipin Goel to the total exclusion of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff as of today is not even aware of the current deposits in the bank accounts of the Company. Defendant No.1 alongwith his two sons have removed Plaintiffs name as a signatory from all bank accounts of the Company. As of today CS(COMM) 701/2017 Page 3 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/01/2026 at 20:45:22 Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are the only persons authorized to operate the bank accounts of the Company. Pertinently, the Company is presently not doing any business, and even the VAT and Excise registration has been surrendered by the Company. The aforesaid facts have gained relevance in view of the fact that one M/s Sineximco Pte Ltd. has taken out an execution proceeding being Ex.P.54/2013 against the Defendant No.2 Company in this Hon'ble Court for executing a decree passed by this Hon'ble Court. In the said proceeding, Plaintiff was directed by the executing court to file an affidavit disclosing the present assets and bank accounts of the Company. Plaintiff apprehends that Defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4, if not restrained by this Hon'ble Court from operating the bank accounts of the Company, may siphon of the amounts lying in the different bank accounts of the Company to avoid statutory and other liabilities of the Company.
12. The Plaintiff by the present application also seeks amendment of Para 27, valuation Para, and prayer Clause of the Plaint in the manner mentioned hereinbelow:
At the end of Para 27 of the Plaint, the following Para is added:
"The cause of action further arose on April 5, 2011, when the CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by the Defendant No.2 and remanded the matter to Commissioner Customs for fresh adjudication of the demand. The cause of action once again arose on April 19, 2011, when the Department of Trade and Taxes, GNCT, Delhi, attached the amount of Rs. 20 crores CS(COMM) 701/2017 Page 4 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/01/2026 at 20:45:22 deposited in this Hon'ble Court on account of the arrears of VAT. The cause of action again arose when the Income Tax department demanded RS. 18186674/- and sought its impleadment in the present Suit by filing an impleadment application. The cause of action is continued till the time the claims of aforesaid statutory authorities are adjudicated and satisfied to the extent finally determined."
13. The following paragraph is added at the end of Para 30 of the Plaint:
"That the Suit is valued for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee for the Relief mentioned in Prayer Clause (a-1) to (a-3) for Rs. 200/- each and a court fee of Rs. 60 is accordingly paid."
14. The Petitioner is also amending the prayer Clause and adding two more prayers as Prayer (a-1) and (a-2) and (a-3), which are following:
(a-1). Pass a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the Defendant No. 1 to 4 from appropriating or in any manner dealing with the amount of approximately Rs. 20 Crore alongwith the interest lying with this Hon'ble Court, till the time, all statutory and other liabilities of the Defendant No.2 are not fully adjudicated and paid, and residual of the amount applied towards the distribution envisaged under the Agreement dated June 8, 2006;
(a-2) Pass a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction, against the Defendant No. 1 to 4, to keep deposited/retain the aforesaid amount of CS(COMM) 701/2017 Page 5 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/01/2026 at 20:45:22 approximately Rs.20 Crore alongwith the interest with the registry of this Hon'ble Court, till the time, all statutory and other liabilities of the Defendant No.2 are not fully adjudicated and paid, and residual of the amount applied towards the distribution envisaged under the Agreement dated June 8, 2006;
(a-3). Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant Nos. 1, 3, and 4, from operating or in any manner dealing with the Bank accounts of the Defendant No.2 at Punjab National Bank, Account No. 4196008700000100, Mid - Corporate Branch, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001; American Express Bank Ltd./Standard Chartered Bank, Account Number; 031369284, Hamilton House, A Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110001; and ABN Amro Bank/RBS: Account Number: 150474 (NR), Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi - 110001; or any other Bank account of the Company; and also restrain the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 from opening any other new Bank account of the Company."
3. The Suit is only at the preliminary stage.
4. The law relating to amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC has been crystallized by the Apex Court in several cases. It is settled law that courts should have a liberal approach in allowing amendment of pleadings, unless the same is barred by limitation. The Apex Court in Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad & Ors, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 256, has held as under:
"33. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that the courts should be liberal in allowing applications for leave to amend pleadings but it is also well settled that CS(COMM) 701/2017 Page 6 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/01/2026 at 20:45:22 the courts must bear in mind the statutory limitations brought about by reason of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Acts; the proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 being one of them. In North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511, the law has been laid down by this Court in the following terms : (SCC p. 517, para 16).
"16. Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil [AIR 1957 SC 363] which still holds the field, it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions : (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs. (Also see Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar [(1990) 1 SCC 166].)"
34. In the case of P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525, the above observations were reiterated by this Court and in the light of the same, this Court in para 9 held as under:
"9. By reason of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, measures have been taken for early disposal of the suits. In furtherance of the aforementioned parliamentary object, further amendments were carried out in the years 1999 and 2002. With a view to put an end to the practice of filing CS(COMM) 701/2017 Page 7 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/01/2026 at 20:45:22 applications for amendments of pleadings belatedly, a proviso was added to Order 6 Rule 17 which reads as under:
"17. Amendment of pleadings.--The court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties : Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.""
35. In B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712, this Court referred to the following passage from A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 wherein, it was held as follows:--
"4. This Court in A.K. Gupta & Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corpn. [AIR 1967 SC 96 : (1966) 1 SCR 796] held:
"The general rule, no doubt, is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit on new case or cause of action is barred: Weldon v. Neal [[L.R.] 19 Q.B. 394 : 56 LJ QB 621]. But it is also well recognised that where the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts to no more than a different or additional approach to the same facts, the amendment will be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation : See Charan Das v. Amir Khan [AIR 1921 PC 50 : ILR 48 Cal 110] and L.J. CS(COMM) 701/2017 Page 8 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/01/2026 at 20:45:22 Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co. [AIR 1957 SC 357 : 1957 SCR 438] The principal reasons that have led to the rule last mentioned are, first, that the object of courts and rules of procedure is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes (Cropper v. Smith [[L.R.] 26 Ch. 700 : 53 LJ Ch 891 : 51 LT 729]) and secondly, that a party is strictly not entitled to rely on the statute of limitation when what is sought to be brought in by the amendment can be said in substance to be already in the pleading sought to be amended (Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba Shilwant [ILR (1909) 33 Bom 644 : 11 Bom LR 1042] approved in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil [AIR 1957 SC 363 : 1957 SCR 595]).
The expression „cause of action‟ in the present context does not mean „every fact which it is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed‟ as was said in Cooke v. Gill [[L.R.] 8 C.P. 107 : 42 LJCP 98 : 28 LT 32] in a different context, for if it were so, no material fact could ever be amended or added and, of course, no one would want to change or add an immaterial allegation by amendment. That expression for the present purpose only means, a new claim made on a new basis constituted by new facts. Such a view was taken in Robinson v. Unicos Property Corpn. Ltd. [[1962] 2 All ER 24 (CA)] and it seems to us to be the only possible view to take. Any other view would make the rule futile. The words „new case‟ have been understood to mean „new set of ideas‟ : Dornan v. J.W. Ellis and Co. Ltd. [[1962] 1 All ER 303 (CA)] This also seems to us to be a reasonable view to take. No amendment will be allowed to introduce a new set of ideas to the prejudice of any right acquired by any party by lapse of time."CS(COMM) 701/2017 Page 9 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/01/2026 at 20:45:22 Again in Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar [(1974) 2 SCC 393] this Court held : (SCC p. 399, para 22) "The power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly wide and may at any stage be appropriately exercised in the interest of justice, the law of limitation notwithstanding. But the exercise of such far-reaching discretionary powers is governed by judicial considerations and wider the discretion, greater ought to be the care and circumspection on the part of the court."
"4. It is clear from the foregoing summary of the main rules of pleadings that provisions for the amendment of pleadings, subject to such terms as to costs and giving of all parties concerned necessary opportunities to meet exact situations resulting from amendments, are intended for promoting the ends of justice and not for defeating them. Even if a party or its counsel is inefficient in setting out its case initially the shortcoming can certainly be removed generally by appropriate steps taken by a party which must no doubt pay costs for the inconvenience or expense caused to the other side from its omissions. The error is not incapable of being rectified so long as remedial steps do not unjustifiably injure rights accrued."......"
*****
37. Thus, the Plaintiffs and Defendant are entitled to amend the plaint, written statement or file an additional written statement. It is, however, subject to an exception that by the proposed amendment, an opposite party should not be subject to injustice and that any admission made in favour of the other party is not but wrong. All amendments of the pleadings should be allowed liberally which are necessary for determination of the real controversies in the suit CS(COMM) 701/2017 Page 10 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/01/2026 at 20:45:22 provided that the proposed amendment does not alter or substitute a new cause of action on the basis of which the original lis was raised or defence taken.
38. Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment to the pleadings."
5. In addition, the Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited, (2022) 16 SCC 1, after analysing several case laws has summarised the law regarding amendment of pleadings as under:-
"71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:
71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed:
71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties.
71.3.2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided
(a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side,
(b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment do not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side, and
(c) the amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).CS(COMM) 701/2017 Page 11 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/01/2026 at 20:45:22 71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless:
71.4.1. By the amendment, a time-barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time-barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration.
71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit.
71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or 71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.
71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.
71.6. Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed.
71.7. Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time-barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation.
71.8. Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint.
71.9. Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a CS(COMM) 701/2017 Page 12 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/01/2026 at 20:45:22 ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision.
71.10. Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed.
71.11. Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi [Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897] .)"
6. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court is inclined to allow the amendments. This Court is also satisfied that the proposed amendments are bona fide and are required for proper adjudication of the present Suit. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Plaintiff is permitted to amend the Plaint in terms of the proposed amendments.CS(COMM) 701/2017 Page 13 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/01/2026 at 20:45:22
7. Let the amended Plaint be filed.
8. The Defendants are at liberty to file Written Statement(s) to the amended Plaint within the time prescribed under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
9. The Application is disposed of.
CS(COMM) 701/2017 & I.A. 241/2025, I.A. 1280/2010
1. List before the Ld. Joint Registrar on 08.04.2026 for completion of pleadings.
2. List before Court on 13.07.2026 for further proceedings.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J JANUARY 29, 2026 S. Zakir CS(COMM) 701/2017 Page 14 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/01/2026 at 20:45:22