Calcutta High Court
Skipper Limited vs Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited ... on 8 September, 2025
OCD-50
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
ORIGINAL SIDE
CS-COM/14/2024
IA No. GA-COM/4/2025
SKIPPER LIMITED
VS
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED AND ANR
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO
Date : September 8, 2025.
Appearance :
Mr. Sayantan Bose, Adv.
Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay, Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Gope, Adv.
... for the plaintiff
Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Aritra Basu, Adv.
Mr. Uttam Kumar Mandal, Adv.
Mrs. Maitree Roy, Adv.
... for the defendant no.1
1.The plaintiff has filed the present application being GA-COM/4/2025 praying for amendment in the cause title of the plaint by incorporating the name of the Resolution Professional, namely, Mr. Maligi Madhusudhan Reddy, IBBI Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP- P00843/2017-2018/11427, having his office at MMREDDY & CO., 4 th Floor, HSR Eden, Road No.2, Banjarahills, Hyderabad, Telengana, Pin-500034 outside the jurisdiction aforesaid.
2. The plaintiff has served the copy of this application to the IRP through post as well as e-mail but in spite of receipt of the notice, IRP has not appeared in the matter.
3. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that after filing of the suit, the plaintiff came to know that by an order dated 4th June, 2024, the 2 National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in CP No. 69/9/HDB/2023 has appointed Mr. Pankaj Bhattad as IRP under Section 13(1)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Subsequently, by an order dated 23rd July, 2024, Mr. Maligi Madhushdhan Reddy was appointed as IRP instead of Mr. Pankaj Bhattad.
4. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has not prayed for any relief against the defendant no.2 in the plaint and the defendant no.2 is not a necessary party but is a proper party for adjudication of the suit filed by the plaintiff and as such, the defendant no.2 has gone into CIRP and IRP has been appointed, thus, the IRP is to be made party being the representative of the defendant no.2.
5. Mr. Aritra Basu, Learned Advocate appearing for the defendant no.1 submits that the Resolution Professional cannot be made as a party being the representative of the defendant no.2 in terms of Section 25 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and he has relied upon Section 25(b) of the said Code and submitted that IRP has no authority to defend the suit on behalf of the defendant no.2 before this Court. He submits that the plaintiff had the knowledge that the publication was made on 6th June, 2024 but the plaintiff has not made any claim and subsequently, the Learned Tribunal has appointed IRP and during moratorium, IRP cannot be made as party to the instant suit being the representative of the defendant no.2. 3
6. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgment in the case of SSMP Industries Ltd. vs. Perkan Food Processors Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9339 and submitted that unless the proceeding has the effect of endangering, diminishing, dissipating or adversely impacting the assets of corporate debtor, it would not be prohibited under Section 14(1)(a) of the Code. He submits that in the present case also the plaintiff has not claimed against the defendant no.2 and as such, there is no bar for making the IRP as party being the representative of the defendant no.2.
7. Mr. Basu, Learned Advocate appearing for the defendant no.1 has relied upon the judgment in the case of Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Limited vs. Hotel Gaudawan Private Limited and Others reported in (2018) 16 Supreme Court Cases 94 and submitted that the mandate of the new Insolvency Code is that the moment an insolvency petition is admitted, the moratorium that comes into effect under Section 14(1)(a) expressly interdicts institution or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against corporate debtors. Mr. Basu submits that admittedly in the present case the moratorium has come into effect and IRP has been appointed and as such, the suit cannot be proceeded against the defendant no.2.
8. Heard Learned Counsel for the respective parties. Perused the materials on record.
9. This Court finds that the plaintiff has not prayed for any relief in the plaint against the defendant no.2. Prayer (a) which is the consequential prayer in the plaint reads as follows :- 4
"a) Decree for Rs. 2,01,14,234/- against the defendant No.1 in terms of paragraph 25 hereof;"
10. In paragraph 30 of the plaint, the plaintiff has made the following averments :-
"30) The cause of action of the plaintiff as against the defendant no.1 is independent from that of the defendant no. 2. The plaintiff is also entitled to separate relief as against the defendant no. 2.
The plaintiff, however, is not claiming any relief as against the defendant no. 2 in the instant suit by reason of a forum selection clause in the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2. The plaintiff is entitled to file a separate suit in respect of the cause of action which is independent and separate as against the defendant no. 2 in the appropriate Court at Hyderabad. The presence of the defendant no. 2, however, is otherwise necessary for adjudication of the issues raised in this suit."
11. Mr. Basu has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement made in paragraph 23 of the plaint which reads as follows :-
"The obligation of the defendant no. 1 to make such payment is direct and/or in any event joint and/or several and/or co- extensive with the defendant no. 2."
12. This Court finds that the plaintiff has not prayed for any relief against the defendant no. 2. In paragraph 30 also the plaintiff has categorically mentioned that the cause of action of the plaintiff as against the defendant 1 is independent from that of the defendant no.2. The plaintiff is also entitled to separate relief as against the defendant no.2. However, the plaintiff is not claiming any relief against the defendant no.2 in the present suit. Taking into 5 consideration of the said statement and the prayer made by the plaintiff in the plaint, this Court is of the view that the defendant no.2 being a proper party and not a necessary party, the defendant no.2 is to be made party for adjudication of the suit but now IRP has been appointed and the defendant no. 2 is in CIRP. Accordingly, this Court finds that only for the purpose of adjudication of the case, as the plaintiff is not claiming any relief against the defendant no.2, Resolution Professional can be made as party to the suit being the representative of the defendant no.2.
13. In view of the above, the amendment, as sought for by the plaintiff is allowed.
14. The department is directed to make necessary amendment in terms of the proposed amendment as indicated by the plaintiff within a period of two weeks from date. After the amendment is carried out, the plaintiff is directed to reverify and reaffirm the affidavit within a week thereafter and to serve the copy of the amended plaint to the defendant no.2 through the IRP and the IRP is at liberty to appear in the matter to defend the case on behalf of the defendant no.2.
15. GA-COM/4/2025 is disposed of.
(KRISHNA RAO, J.) RS