Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.38 seconds)Section 14 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 60 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Prem Bakshi & Ors vs Dharam Dev & Ors on 9 January, 2002
23. Refuting the contentions on behalf of defendant Nos. 6 and 7
that the proposed amendment alters the nature of the suit and/or
introduces a new cause of action. Mr. Joshi submitted that the
cause of action to call in question the development agreement
dated 21st October, 2023 executed by the Society (D6) in favour of
Ajmera Luxe (R7) flows from the very rights which have been
created in favour of the plaintiff under the Debenture Trust Deed
(DTD). The action of termination of development agreement
executed by Society (D6) in favour of Meeti (D1) had already been
assailed by the plaintiff. The challenge to the subsequent
development agreement between the Society (D6) and respondent
No. 7 is in continuation of the assertion of the plaintiffs rights
under DTD. To buttress the submission that the amendments
which are necessary to determine the real question in controversy
and are necessitated by the subsequent events are required to be
liberally allowed, Mr. Joshi placed reliance on the decisions of the
Supreme Court in the cases of Prem Bakshi and Ors. Vs. Dharam
Dev and Ors.6 and Om Prakak Gupta Vs. Ranbir B. Goyal.7
4 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9339
5 Sp.L.P.(C) No. 17427/2022 Dt.20/10/2022
6 (2002) 2 SCC 2
7 (2022) 2 SCC 256
Vishal Parekar, PS 11 of 30
::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2024 08:16:13 :::
1-IA-1319-2024.doc
Om Prakash Gupta vs Ranbir B. Goyal on 18 January, 2002
23. Refuting the contentions on behalf of defendant Nos. 6 and 7
that the proposed amendment alters the nature of the suit and/or
introduces a new cause of action. Mr. Joshi submitted that the
cause of action to call in question the development agreement
dated 21st October, 2023 executed by the Society (D6) in favour of
Ajmera Luxe (R7) flows from the very rights which have been
created in favour of the plaintiff under the Debenture Trust Deed
(DTD). The action of termination of development agreement
executed by Society (D6) in favour of Meeti (D1) had already been
assailed by the plaintiff. The challenge to the subsequent
development agreement between the Society (D6) and respondent
No. 7 is in continuation of the assertion of the plaintiffs rights
under DTD. To buttress the submission that the amendments
which are necessary to determine the real question in controversy
and are necessitated by the subsequent events are required to be
liberally allowed, Mr. Joshi placed reliance on the decisions of the
Supreme Court in the cases of Prem Bakshi and Ors. Vs. Dharam
Dev and Ors.6 and Om Prakak Gupta Vs. Ranbir B. Goyal.7
4 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9339
5 Sp.L.P.(C) No. 17427/2022 Dt.20/10/2022
6 (2002) 2 SCC 2
7 (2022) 2 SCC 256
Vishal Parekar, PS 11 of 30
::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2024 08:16:13 :::
1-IA-1319-2024.doc
Alchemist Asset Reconstrution Company ... vs M/S. Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd. on 23 October, 2017
27. It was submitted that the import of the prohibition against
8 (1987) 2 SCC 707
Vishal Parekar, PS 13 of 30
::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2024 08:16:13 :::
1-IA-1319-2024.doc
the proceedings during the currency of the moratorium is
required to be appreciated in the light of the object of section 14 of
IBC. To lend support to this submission, Mr. Andhyarujina placed
reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of
Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Limited vs. Hotel
Gaudavan Private Limited and Others 9 and Indian Overseas Bank
vs. M/s. Ram Infrastructure Limited and Anr. 10. Mr. Andhyarujina
further urged that the submissions on behalf of the plaintiff that
the plaintiff would be left in the lurch if the plaintiff is not
permitted to amend the plaint and proceed against Ajmera Luxe
(R7) is wholly unfounded. It was submitted that the plaintiff has
an efficacious remedy under section 60(5) of the IBC, before the
NCLT. Therefore, the plaintiff can approach the NCLT in the
pending Company Petition which has been instituted by the
plaintiff himself.
Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. vs Alok Kumar Lodha on 12 July, 2022
54. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the submission
of Mr. Andhyarujina that the proposed amendment to the extent it
seeks to assail the transaction between the Society (D6) and
Ajmera Luxe (R7) constitutionally alters the nature and character
of the suit. Reliance placed by Mr.Andhyarujina on the decision of
the Supreme Court, in the case of Asian Hotels (supra) does not
advance the cause of the submission on behalf of Ajmera Luxe
(R7). In that suit, the licensees had sought to amend the plaint so
Vishal Parekar, PS 27 of 30
::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2024 08:16:13 :::
1-IA-1319-2024.doc
as to assail the mortgages executed by the licenser in respect of
the entire hotel premises, while the licenses were granted for
individual shops. In that context, the Supreme Court held that by
permitting plaintiffs to amend the plaint to incorporate a prayer
clause to declare the charges/ mortgages on the entire premises as
void-ab-initio , the nature of the suit would be completely changed.