Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

M/S Worldwide Logistics Survey And ... vs M/S Metal Recycling Association Of ... on 17 December, 2011

 IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA, CIVIL JUDGE­03(SOUTH), 
                     SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI        


Suit no. 246/10


IN THE MATTER OF:
M/s Worldwide Logistics Survey and Inspection
Group and affairs (WLSI)
Through its Managing Parter Mr. Dinesh Aneja
E­82 Saket, New Delhi­17,
Presently At:
E­103, Saket, New Delhi­17,                          ......Plaintiff


                       Versus


1.    M/s Metal Recycling Association of India
      301­305 Reena Complex,
      Vidya Vihar (West), Mumbai­400886
      Through its President, Mr. Iqbal Nath
2.    Mr. Iqbal Nath, President
      M/s Metal Recycling Association of India
      301­305 Reena Complex
      Vidya Vihar (West), Mumbai­400886.           ......Defendant


DATE OF INSTITUTION                      : 21.10.2010
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER              : 16.12.2011 
DATE OF DECISION                         : 17.12.2011


                                1
                                ORDER

(On application under Order 6 rule 17 CPC) This order shall dispose off application of the defendant under Order 6 rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of WS. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that subsequent to the filing of WS by the defendant on 19.01.2011, the defendant has come to know that the Govt. of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industries has informed all licensing authorities and all custom authorities that the plaintiff pre­ shipment Inspection Agencies has been temporary suspended and that the certificates being issued by the plaintiff would not be accepted.

It is submitted that circular was issued on 04.02.2011. The fact of issuance of circular is a subsequent development. Therefore the defendant should be granted opportunity to amend the WS and to add para no.8A and 8B by which the defendant seek to insert the fact of circular issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industries.

Plaintiff has filed reply to this application and has submitted that the present suit of the plaintiff is for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from issuing false and malice e­ mails, communications which adversely affects the business of the plaintiff. The circular dated 04.2.2011 has been issued by the Ministry 2 in respect of some other proceedings whether as the present suit is in respect of alter circular dated 05.08.2010 which is totally different proceedings. Circular dated 04.02.2011 has been challenged by the plaintiff before appellate authority and alert circular dated 05.08.2010 was challenged before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi where Hon'ble High Court has observed that the said circular was only precautionary and does not cast any stigma upon the plaintiff. Hence the amendment sought is irrelevant to decide the real dispute between the parties. The application is devoid of merits.

I have perused the pleadings. The defendant has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Om Prakash Gupta Vs. Rambir Gupta" 2002 SCC 256 where in Hon'ble Supreme Court has hold that court has power to take note of any subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly subject to following conditions being satisfied:­ (i) that the relief, as claimed originally has, by reason of subsequent events, become inappropriate or cannot be granted; (ii) that taking note of such subsequent event or changed circumstances would shorten litigation and enable compete justice being done to the parties: and (iii) that such subsequent event is brought to the notice of the court promptly and in accordance with the rules of procedural law 3 so that the opposite party is not taken by surprise.

The defendant wants to insert the fact of temporary suspension of the license of the plaintiff on the ground to show the conduct of the plaintiff. This court is of the opinion that the subsequent developments which show the conduct of the party is relevant to decide the issue of injunction as the injunction is an equitable remedy. How much weight can be given to the circular of the Ministry is to be decided at the stage of evidence and judgment.

The fact that the circular has been issued after the filing of the WS is not denied by the plaintiff. Hence the application under Order 6 rule 17 CPC is allowed. Amended WS be filed on next date of hearing.

Pronounced in the open court 
on 17.12.2011                                                  (NEHA)   
                                                        Civil Judge­03(South)
                                                             New Delhi. 




                                           4