Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Learned counsel further submitted that complainant has moved an application on 7.9.2021 to carry out an amendment in cause title which was allowed by learned trial court on same day and by way of amendment, cause title of complaint was amended and Narendra Kumar, son of Banwari Lal (Properietor) was arrayed as an accused no.2 and in this regard he has placed reliance upon the judgment of S.R.Sukumar (supra).

8. Accused No.1 M/s. Narendra Kumar and Brothers was arrayed through its working partners through Saurabh Bansal and its properietor Narendra Kumar. Counsel placed reliance upon S.P.Mani and Mohan Dairy Vs. Dr.Snehlatha Elangovan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1238, that there was no legal requirement for the complainant to show that accused partner of firm was aware about each and every transaction.

14. In the complaint, above referred averments are reiterated in paragraphs nos.2,3,6,8,10 and 11 (Annexure No.1 to this application) however, initially in cause title, name of applicant no.3, Narendra Kumar was not mentioned though, there were specific averments against him also.

15. In these circumstances, application moved by the complainant for amendment in cause title was submitted and it was allowed, therefore, the amendment could not be considered to be a substantial one as it was only to add applicant no.3 as one of the parties to complaint and no amendment was proposed in contents of the application.

16. In S.R.Sukumar (supra), Supreme Court has reproduced part of U.P. Pollution Control, Board (supra) wherein amendment of details of the company was allowed and it was held that Court may permit an amendment which are formal in nature though a caveat was put that in event of likelihood of prejudice to the other side, such amendment may not be allowed.

17. As discussed above, amendment was only in the cause title without any amendment in body of complaint wherein there were specific allegations against the applicant no.3 also, therefore, in the light of judgment of S.R. Sukumar (supra), since no prejudice was caused, therefore, there was no illegality in amendment of the cause title, as such submission of learned counsel for the applicants is rejected.