Quashed

Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Deepakkumar Vinubhai Thaker

Gujarat HC14 Jun 2018SCA/14018/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court of Gujarat quashed an order permitting a belated suit amendment. The High Court held that amending a suit based on employee transfer to claim monetary compensation 16 years later entirely altered the suit's nature and was not a bona fide request.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order dated 21.03.2013 permitting the amendment and made the rule absolute.

Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Deepakkumar Vinubhai… — Service and Employment | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

C/SCA/14018/2013 JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14018 of 2013

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

¶6

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶7

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶8

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?

¶9

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?

¶10

==========================================================

¶11

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD

¶12

Versus

¶13

DEEPAKKUMAR VINUBHAI THAKER

¶14

==========================================================

¶15

Appearance:

¶16

MR DG SHUKLA(1998) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR. MANOJ T DANAK(6264) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED(64) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2,3,4,5

¶17

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

¶18

Date : 14/06/2018

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

1 This petition under Article 226 of the

¶21

Constitution of India is filed by the original
defendant No.1 of Regular Civil Suit No. 362 of 1996

¶22

pending before the learned Additional Civil Judge,
Nadiad. The petition is filed challenging the order

¶23

Page 1 of 6

¶24

C/SCA/14018/2013 JUDGMENT

¶25

dated 21.03.2013 passed by the learned trial Judge
who allowed the application below Exh.71 and
permitted the plaintiff, respondent No.1 herein to
amend his plaint.

¶26

2The facts in brief are as under:

¶27

2.1The respondent – original plaintiff was an
employee of the petitioner company. While in service,
a transfer order dated 16.08.1996 was issued
transferring the respondent- original plaintiff from
Nadiad to Delhi. The respondent – plaintiff on being
aggrieved by the order of transfer, filed Regular
Civil Suit No. 362 of 1996 before the learned Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Nadiad, praying that he
should not be transferred. On reading of the plaint
and the prayers therein, it is clear that, it was the
case of the plaintiff – respondent No.1 herein that
he should not be transferred to the place where he
was, or to any other place.

¶28

2.2The learned trial Judge granted an order of
status-quo. Preliminary objections were raised
regarding maintainability of the suit by the

¶29

Page 2 of 6

¶30

C/SCA/14018/2013 JUDGMENT

¶31

petitioner and also on merits, suggesting that the
respondent-defendant was holding a job and the
appointment order itself had a condition, that the
defendant can be transferred. An interim order was
passed on 03.05.1997 by the trial Court not to
transfer the petitioner outside the state.

¶32

2.3Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner
preferred Civil Misc. Appeal No. 192 of 1997. Since
the appeal remained pending, a joint pursis was
submitted in Janurary 2007 for early disposal of the
Regular Civil Suit. By an order dated 09.01.2007, the
learned Additional District Judge directed the trial
Court to dispose of the suit within six months.

¶33

3Be it noted that, pending the proceedings, the
respondent-original plaintiff was transferred to
Bhuj, where the respondent did not join.

¶34

4On 14.06.2012, i.e. 16 years after the suit was
filed, the plaintiff-respondent herein moved an
amendment application below Exh.71 on 07.09.2012
praying inter alia that the value of the suit be
increased from Rs.300/- to Rs. 91,79,611/- This was

¶35

Page 3 of 6

¶36

C/SCA/14018/2013 JUDGMENT

¶37

purportedly on the ground that by way of such an
amendment, the respondent-plaintiff claimed monetary
reliefs in the suit under various heads such as,
incentives, outstanding salary, allowances, bonus,

¶38

Provident Fund and gratuity compensation for
harassment and mental agony and prevention of
personal growth. By the impugned order dated
21.03.2013, the learned trial Judge permitted such an
amendment. The learned trial Judge observed that such
amendment would not cause prejudice or change the
nature of the suit and that the issues can be decided
on leading of evidence.

¶39

5Aggrieved by this order, the Company – original
defendant No.1 has filed this petition.

¶40

6Mr.D.G.Shukla, learned advocate for the

¶41

petitioner has contended that when the prayer of the
suit as originally framed is compared with that of
the amended one, it is apparent that the relief is
far beyond that which is originally claimed.

¶42

7The other contention raised by Mr.Shukla is that
the amendment application was filed more than sixteen
years after the suit was so filed, which completely

¶43

Page 4 of 6

¶44

C/SCA/14018/2013 JUDGMENT

¶45

altered the nature of the suit. Moreover, apart from
enlarging the scope of the Civil Suit, apparently,
such a prayer was not maintainable as the Civil Suit
was not the remedy.

¶46

8Mr. Manoj Danak, has appeared for original
respondent No.1 and suggested that the learned trial
Judge did not commit any error in permitting the
amendment.

¶47

9Mr.Shukla has relied on a judgment in the case
of Revajeetu Builders & Developers vs. Narayanswamy
& Sons., reported in 2009 (10) SCC 84 to contend that
the Court ought not to have exercised jurisdiction
under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure
granting such a belated amendment.

¶48

10Having considered the submissions of both the

¶49

parties, it is evident that the suit filed in 1996
was only against the order of transfer which was the
cause of action at that point. Sixteen years after
the pendency of the suit, by the application at
Exh.71, an entirely new set of reliefs, mandatory in
nature claiming compensation under various heads such
as allowances, increments, compensation for mental

¶50

Page 5 of 6

¶51

C/SCA/14018/2013 JUDGMENT

¶52

agony and harassment etc., has been prayed. Such an
amendment could not have been allowed by the Court
when the suit originally framed was for the
determination and validity of an order of transfer.
The amendment so prayed would entirely alter the
nature of the suit. Apart there from, such an
amendment sixteen years after the suit was filed was
clearly belated and an after thought. The amendment
could not have been asked for because it was not made
bonafide and it was not such which would render
proper and effective adjudication of the original
cause i.e. the order of transfer.

¶53

11Accordingly, I am of the view that the learned
trial Judge committed serious error in permitting the
respondent No.1-original plaintiff to amend the
plaint as prayed for by him vide application Exh.71.
Accordingly, the order dated 21.03.2013 passed below
Exh.71 by the Additional Civil Judge, Nadiad, in
Regular Civil Suit No. 362 of 1996 is hereby quashed
and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the above
extent.

¶54

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)

¶55

Bimal

¶56

Page 6 of 6

Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Deepakkumar Vinubhai Thaker

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Deepakkumar Vinubhai Thaker

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanjibhai Dalsukhbhai Solanki Vs Rajubhai Ranchhodbhai Sampat

Sushilaben B Shah Vs Premaben Buddising Gupta Since Deceased through Legal Heirs

Rana Project International Limited Vs Gayatri Polymers and Geosynthetics

Ramesh Kedarnath Sharma Vs Omprakash Sohanlal Jadav

Ramesh Kedarnath Sharma Vs Omprakash Sohanlal Jadav

Nilima Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Manojkumar Agrawal