Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. An order rejecting the application to implead an additional defendant is challenged by the first defendant in revision.

2. The first defendant is a partnership firm and the other defendants are its partners. A suit was filed by the Andhra Bank for realisation of amounts advanced under various heads of loans. The contention was that the advance was guaranteed by the Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) and, therefore, the Corporation is a necessary party. A separate application filed for that purpose was opposed both by the plaintiff as well as the ECGC.

3. Admittedly, the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants is independent of the agreement (exhibit B-1) between the plaintiff and the ECGC to which the defendants are not parties. There seems to be some independent transaction between the defendants and the ECGC in which the plaintiff is not interested and is not a party. The contention of the defendants that the ECGC guaranteed the advances to them by the plaintiff does not appear prima facie to be correct. Such a claim was denied both by the plaintiff and the ECGC and the contention is that the transaction between the ECGC and the defendants is entirely different and unconnected with the plaint transaction. ECGC has issued a Whole Packing Credit Guarantee to the plaintiff bank under which, when the whole or any portion of the amount due from the defendants is ultimately found irrecoverable after exhausting all remedies independently, there will be a specific liability for the ECGC. That is rather in the form of an insurance unconnected with the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants and the relief claimed against the defendants in the suit.

4. The plaintiff has not made any claim in the suit against the ECGC and the plaintiff does not want to implead the Corporation or ask for any relief. The ultimate claim, if any, of the plaintiff against the ECGC is independent of the plaint transaction by which the defendants are exclusively liable. Liability of the defendants towards the plaintiff is also independent of the claim of the plaintiff against the ECGC and also independent of the claim of the defendants, if any, towards the ECGC. The only relevant factor is that in case the plaintiff becomes unable to enforce the liability against the defendants after exhausting all remedies, the plaintiff may get a cause of action against the ECGC. Under such circumstances, the question is whether the ECGC is a necessary or proper party.

12. The subject-matter of this suit is only enforcement of a loan liability by the plaintiff against the defendants on the basis of a transaction to which they alone are parties. ECGC is not a party to that transaction and it has nothing to do with the enforcement of the liability by the plaintiff against the defendants. The agreement between the plaintiff and the ECGC is independent of that cause of action and the defendants are not parties to it. The fact that ultimately the plaintiff may have a cause of action against the ECGC if the amount or any portion of it is not realisable from the defendants is independent of and unconnected with the cause of action as between the plaintiff and the defendants. The transaction, if any, between the defendants and the ECGC is also independent of the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants and the plaintiffs and the ECGC. The plaintiff does not want any relief against the ECGC in this suit and the ECGC also does not want to come in as a defendant. If at all anybody other than the parties will be affected by this suit, it is only the ECGC which is not interested in a fight. In such a situation, the stand of the defendants to bring in the ECGC is illegal and unreasonable. The liability of the defendants towards the plaintiff is also not in any way connected with their liability towards any claim against the ECGC. It naturally follows that the ECGC is not at all interested in the cause of action or relief in the suit and hence it is not a necessary or proper party. The plaintiff cannot be compelled by the defendants to litigate against such a party.