Skip to content


T.N. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd. Vs. T.N. Electricity Board and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectElectricity
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 7615 of 2002
Judge
Reported in2004(2)AWC1514(SC); 2004(2)CTC637; JT2004(2)SC613; 2004(2)SCALE533; (2004)3SCC392
ActsCompanies Act
AppellantT.N. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd.
RespondentT.N. Electricity Board and ors.
Appellant Advocate T.L.V. Iyer, Sr. Adv.,; Ramesh Babu M.R., Adv
Respondent Advocate A.T.M. Sampath, ; P.N. Ramalingam, ; V. Balaji and ;
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases ReferredIn L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Jardine Skinner and Co.
Prior historyFrom the Judgment and Order dated 10.7.2001 of the Madras High Court in O.S.A. No. 30 of 2000
Excerpt:
companies act - amendment of plaint - rejection of - validity - appellant company filed suit for damages alleging that company became sick due to non supply of electricity by respondents - application filed by appellant company for amendment of plaint for enhancement of damages - allowed by single judge of high court - appeal by respondents - allowed by high court - validity - law as regard permitting amendment to plaint is well settled - since the appellate court has a co-extensive power of trial court, discretion exercised by high court in rejecting plaint held to be justified - - the law as regard permitting amendment to the plaint, is well settled......damage suffered during the period commencing from 28th march, 1983 to 16th october, 1992. the said suit was filed sometime in march, 1993 on the original side of the madras high court. in july, 1998, the appellant herein filed an interlocutory application for amendment of the plaint. by the said application for amendment, the appellant sought to enhance its claim for damages. the learned single judge of the high court allowed the amendment, as prayed for. the respondents herein went in appeal before the letters patent bench before the high court and the bench set aside the order of the learned single judge and allowed the appeal. it is against the said order and judgment, the appellant is in appeal before us.2. shri t.l.v. iyer, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant, urged.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The appellant herein is incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and started its commercial production in the year 1982. It appears that subsequently it became sick. It is alleged that the appellant-Company could not run because of non supply of electrical energy by the respondents herein. It is under such circumstances, the appellant herein filed a suit for damages against respondents for the damage suffered during the period commencing from 28th March, 1983 to 16th October, 1992. The said suit was filed sometime in March, 1993 on the Original Side of the Madras High Court. In July, 1998, the appellant herein filed an interlocutory application for amendment of the plaint. By the said application for amendment, the appellant sought to enhance its claim for damages. The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the amendment, as prayed for. The respondents herein went in appeal before the Letters Patent Bench before the High Court and the Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal. It is against the said order and judgment, the appellant is in appeal before us.

2. Shri T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant, urged that the view taken by the High Court in rejecting the amendment of the appellant was erroneous. The law as regard permitting amendment to the plaint, is well settled. In L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Jardine Skinner and Co., : [1957]1SCR438 , it was held that the Court as a rule decline to allow amendments, if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of the application. But that is a factor to be taken into account in exercise of the discretion as to whether amendment should be ordered and does not affect the power of the Court to order it.

3. It is not disputed that the appellate court has a co-extensive power of the trial court. We find that the discretion exercise by the High Court in rejecting the plaint was in conformity with law.

4. For the aforesaid reason, we do not find any merit in the appeal. It fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //