Allowed¶55

Transport Corporation of India, Tci Freight v. Jindal Aluminium Limited

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2025COMAP/440/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Impleadment of insurer; Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC; necessary and proper party; carrier/defendant insured consignment; consignment damage claim Rs.4,42,824/- with 12% interest; Commercial Court Bengaluru; Commercial Appeal COMAP No. 440 of 2022; Karnataka High Court; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. impleaded as Defendant No.2; appeal allowed; order dated 01.10.2022 set aside; Order 41 Rule 1 CPC r/w Section 13(1)(1A) Commercial Court Act, 2015.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed with no costs; order dated 01.10.2022 on the IA in Com.O.S.No.361/2021 set aside; IA filed by the appellant allowed; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. to be impleaded as Defendant No.2 in the suit. ¶55

Transport Corporation of India, Tci Freight Vs Jindal Aluminium Limited — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 01.10.2022 dismissing the IA filed by the Appellant/Defendant under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC, 1908, is liable to be interfered with.

¶43

Court's answer

Since the Respondents/Plaintiffs seek cost of damage caused to the consignment and any liability adjudicated in the suit may have to be borne by the insurer, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is a necessary and proper party for determination of the questions arising in the suit and is required to be arrayed as a party Defendant; hence the appeal merits consideration.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 01.10.2022 passed on the IA in Com.O.S.No.361/2021 by the Commercial Court, Bengaluru, is set aside.

¶56

Key takeaways

The IA filed by the appellant (for impleadment of its insurer) is allowed.ratio¶57
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. shall be impleaded as Defendant No.2 in the suit.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, Division Bench (Anu Sivaraman and K. Manmadha Rao JJ.; oral judgment per Anu Sivaraman J.), 12 June 2025, COMAP No. 440 of 2022 — Impleadment of insurer under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC. In Com.O.S.No.361/2021 the respondents/plaintiffs (Jindal Aluminium Limited and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) sued the appellant-carrier (Transport Corporation of India, TCI Freight) for Rs.4,42,824/- with interest at 12% p.a. as damages to a transported consignment. The appellant, having insured the consignment with New India Assurance Co. Ltd., applied under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC to implead the insurer; the Commercial Court dismissed the IA on 01.10.2022. Holding that any liability adjudicated in the suit may have to be borne by the insurer, the High Court held New India Assurance Co. Ltd. to be a necessary and proper party, allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, allowed the IA, and directed that New India Assurance Co. Ltd. be impleaded as Defendant No.2. No costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:20135-DB COMAP No. 440 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶9

COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 440 OF 2022

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA, TCI FREIGHT (A DIVISION OF TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.) REPRESENTED BY ITS PA HOLDER, MR. GIRISH KUMAR AJARIWAL, S/O SABASHCHANDRA AJARIWAL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, REGISTERED OFFICE R/AT NO.57/58, 2ND CROSS ROAD, KALASIPALYAM NEW EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶13

(BY SRI. SIRAJIN BASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

…APPELLANT

¶16

JINDAL ALUMINIUM LIMITED, ROLLIN AND EXTRUSION DIVISION, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, YEDEHALLI VILLAGE, TUMKUR ROAD, DABASPET, BENGALURU - 562 111.

¶17

M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.21,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:20135-DB COMAP No. 440 of 2022

HC-KAR

MUSEUM ROD,

BENGALURU - 560 025.

…RESPONDENTS

(R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

THIS COMAP / COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC R/W SECTION 13(1)(1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURT ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01/10/2022 ON I.A. UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) OF CPC, IN COM.O.S.NO.361/2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CCH - 86, LXXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶26

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶28

and

¶29

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶32

This Appeal is filed challenging the order dated 01.10.2022 on IA in Commercial OS No.361/2021 passed by the Learned CCH-86, LXXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ Commercial Court’).

¶33

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶34

The Respondents have filed Com.OS.No.361/2021 before

¶35

the Commercial Court against the Appellant/Defendant for

¶36

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20135-DB COMAP No. 440 of 2022

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

recovery of a sum of Rs.4,42,824/- together with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of the suit till the date of satisfaction. The said amount was claimed as damages caused to the consignment that was transported by the Appellant/Defendant.

¶39

It is the case of the Appellant/Defendant that it has appeared before the Commercial Court and filed its written statement. Having regard to the fact that the Appellant/Defendant had insured the consignment with New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the Appellant/Defendant filed IA under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to implead the insurer New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The Commercial Court, vide its order dated 01.10.2022, dismissed the said IA filed by the Appellant/Defendant. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present Appeal is filed.

¶40

[4. We have heard the submissions of the learned

¶41

Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant as well as the learned Counsel for the Respondents.

¶42

The question that arises for our consideration is

¶43

“ Whether the order dated 01.10.2022 in dismissing IA filed by

¶44

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20135-DB COMAP No. 440 of 2022

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

the Appellant/Defendant under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC, 1908, is liable to be interfered with ?”

¶47

It is the case of the Appellant/Defendant that having insured the consignment of the Respondents/Plaintiffs with New India Assurance Co. Ltd., it is liable to pay the damages. It is the further contention of the Appellant/Defendant that all the details of the policy of insurance has been furnished in the affidavit filed along with IA. Having regard to the same, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., is a necessary and proper party for adjudication of the suit, inasmuch as any amount that may be ordered to be paid pursuant to the suit filed by the Respondents/Plaintiffs will be required to be paid by its insurer.

¶48

In view of the specific case of the

¶49

Appellant/Defendant for impleadment of its insurer, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and having regard to the fact that the Respondents/Plaintiffs are seeking cost of damage caused to the consignment and in view of the fact that the liability, if any, that may be adjudicated in the suit may have to be borne by the insurer, we are of the considered opinion that the New

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20135-DB COMAP No. 440 of 2022

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

India Assurance Co. Ltd., will be a necessary and proper party for determination of the questions that may arise for consideration in the suit and is required to be arrayed as a party Defendant in the said suit. Hence, this appeal merits consideration.

¶53

In the result:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

i) The appeal is allowed;

¶56

ii) The order dated 01.10.2022 passed on IA in Com.O.S.No.361/2021 by the Learned CCH-85, LXXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru, is set aside;

¶57

iii) IA filed by the appellant is allowed;

¶58

iv) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. shall be impleaded as Defendant No.2 in the suit.

¶59

No costs.

¶60

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶61

Sd/(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

¶62

YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT: BHK

Transport Corporation of India, Tci Freight v. Jindal Aluminium Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Transport Corporation of India, Tci Freight v. Jindal Aluminium Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Ammaiah Vs Punjab National Bank

Sri R Radhakrishna Pillai Vs Smt K v Shashikala

Sri Jayaram B S Vs Nil

Dr. Jayasukrutamma. D. N. Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Manjunath M.S. Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Sudhir Das Venkata Das Vs State of Karnataka