A BRAHMARAJ Vs. SIVAKUMAR SPINNING MILLS P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The third petitioner in C. P. No. 48 of 1978 is the appellant in these two original Side Appeals. Respondents 1 to 5 herein are the respondents in the Company petition and respondents 6 to 8 herein are the parties sought to to be impleaded as co-respondents in the company petition. The petitioners in the company petition are 8 in number, including the present appellant. For convenience sake. we shall refer to the parties as they stand arrayed in the company petition, and we shall refer to respondents 6 to 8 in these appeals as third parties since they have not yet been impleaded in the company petition. C. P. No. 48 of 1978 is a petition by the petitioners under section 398 of the Companies Act I of 1956, and if occasion comes, it will hereinafter be referred to as the Act. The petitioners are shareholders of Sivakumar Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Company. The prayers projected in the company petition run as follows:

(2.) One salient principle that cannot be lost sight of is that amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and in all circumstances, and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each individual case. The amendments sought for in the present case are elaborate indeed, though they centre round the resolutions alleged to have been passed by the respondents at the meeting of the Directors of the Company stated to have taken place on 30th July, 1978. That was admittedly an event which bad come to pass after the filing of the company petition. There are five resolutions stated to have been passed in the meeting on 30th July,1978, and they run as follows:

(3.) The major hurdle that is coming in the way of the petitioners when they seek the amendments and the addition of third parties to the company petition is the well accepted principle that a distinct, separate and independent new case even arising out of a subsequent event cannot be brought in by way of amendment. There is no gainsaying that the Court can take note of the subsequent events to mould the relief already asked for in the light of the subsequent events. The following passage occurring in the judgment of the Supreme Court in M. Laxmi and Company v. A. R. Deshpande1, is elucidative on the point: