Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Bombay at Goa heard together four matters: Civil Revision Application No.40 of 2016, Civil Revision Application No.26 of 2017, Writ Petition No.148 of 2017 and Writ Petition No.193 of 2017. All arose from the same civil suit between the plaintiff, Sunil Noronha, and defendants: Jude G. Tandon (defendant No.1), M/s Stafford Equipment (Goa) Pvt Ltd (defendant No.2), and Sachin Yalloji Mense (defendant No.3). The suit concerned directorship and ownership of properties of the company. The plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint to include prayers for declaring a sale deed dated 09/03/2004 and a lease deed executed in favour of defendant No.3 as null and void. The defendants sought rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The trial court allowed the amendment application on 06/05/2016 and rejected the rejection applications on 19/08/2016. These orders were challenged by the defendants through the present writ petitions and civil revision applications. The defendants contended that the amendment prayers were time-barred because the plaintiff had knowledge of the sale deed since July 2004 when written statements were filed. They also argued that the plaint should be rejected as the main relief seeking declaration of plaintiff as owner of company properties could not be granted, since a company is a separate legal entity and a director cannot claim ownership over company property. The plaintiff contended that the cause of action for amendment arose only after the High Court decided Writ Petition Nos.279, 362 and 626 of 2006 on 16/01/2015, quashing an earlier order and modifying the trial court's order. The court reserved judgment on 19 January 2023 and pronounced it on 27 January 2023. The provided excerpt does not include the final decision and reasoning beyond the arguments.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Limitation - Defendant No.3 contended that amendment application filed in February 2016 seeking to declare sale deed dated 09/03/2004 null and void was hopelessly time-barred because plaintiff had knowledge from written statements filed in July 2004; plaintiff contended cause of action arose only after High Court order dated 16/01/2015 in Writ Petition Nos.279, 362 and 626 of 2006; trial court allowed amendment on 06/05/2016, which was challenged. (Paras 7,9)
B) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Maintainability - Defendants contended that plaint should be rejected because plaintiff cannot be declared owner of company properties even if considered a director, as company is separate legal entity; trial court rejected applications on 19/08/2016. (Paras 3,7,8)
C) Company Law - Separate Legal Entity - Companies Act, 1956 - Ownership of Company Property - Plaintiff sought declaration as owner of properties belonging to defendant No.3 company; defendants argued plaintiff, even as director, cannot claim ownership over company property; company is separate legal entity. (Paras 7,8)
D) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Limitation - Knowledge of Sale Deed - Defendants argued that written statements filed in July 2004 disclosed sale deed dated 09/03/2004 in favour of defendant No.3; hence knowledge deemed from that date, making amendment in February 2016 time-barred. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's order allowing amendment of plaint and rejecting rejection of plaint applications is tenable, particularly with respect to limitation and maintainability of reliefs concerning ownership of company property.
Law Points
- Amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is subject to law of limitation
- rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC when reliefs cannot be granted
- company is a separate legal entity and director cannot claim ownership of company property
- knowledge of a document from written statement may start limitation for amendment.
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (01) 277
Civil Revision Application No.40 of 2016, Civil Revision Application No.26 of 2017, Writ Petition No.148 of 2017, Writ Petition No.193 of 2017
S.S. Kantak, Neha Kholkar, V.A. Lawande, P. Redkar, Anthony Joe D'Silva, K Gracias
Sachin Yalloji Mense; Jude G. Tandon; M/s Stafford Equipment (Goa) Pvt Ltd
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit involving directorship and ownership of company properties; present proceedings challenge trial court orders allowing amendment of plaint and refusing rejection of plaint.
Remedy Sought
Defendants sought to set aside trial court order dated 06/05/2016 allowing amendment of plaint and order dated 19/08/2016 rejecting applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Filing Reason
Plaintiff sought amendment to plaint to include prayer for declaring sale deed and lease deed null and void after High Court order dated 16/01/2015; defendants sought rejection of plaint on grounds that reliefs were time-barred and legally untenable.
Previous Decisions
Trial court allowed amendment application on 06/05/2016; trial court rejected Order 7 Rule 11 applications on 19/08/2016; High Court in Writ Petition Nos.279, 362 and 626 of 2006 decided on 16/01/2015 quashed order dated 28/10/2005 and modified trial court order.
Issues
Whether amendment of plaint to include time-barred reliefs for declaring sale deed and lease deed null and void should be allowed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
Whether plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as reliefs claimed cannot be granted, including declaration of plaintiff as owner of company properties.
Whether limitation bars the amended claims based on knowledge of sale deed from written statement filed in July 2004.
Whether plaintiff, as director or ex-director, can claim ownership over company's separate legal entity property.
Submissions/Arguments
Defendant No.3 contended that amendment application filed in February 2016 is time-barred because knowledge of sale deed dated 09/03/2004 can be attributed from written statements filed in July 2004.
Defendants argued that plaint should be rejected as plaintiff cannot be declared owner of company properties even if considered a director, since company is separate legal entity.
Defendants submitted that the main prayer in suit seeks declaration of plaintiff as owner of company properties, which cannot be granted.
Plaintiff contended that cause of action for amendment arose only after High Court order dated 16/01/2015 in Writ Petition Nos.279, 362 and 626 of 2006 quashed earlier order and modified trial court order.
Defendants No.1 and 2 had no objection to amendment of internal paragraphs but objected to amendment of prayer clauses as reliefs were barred by limitation.
Judgment Excerpts
if the entire reliefs along with the pleadings in the plaint are considered the plaint needs to be rejected as no such relief could be granted to the plaintiff.
cause of action for filing the amendment arose only after the High Court in the Writ Petition Nos.279, 362 and 626 of 2006 decided on 16/01/2015 quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 28/10/2005 passed by the First Appellate Court and modified the order of the trial court and only thereafter amendment application was filed
Procedural History
Original civil suit filed by plaintiff (Sunil Noronha) against defendants (Jude Tandon, M/s Stafford Equipment, Sachin Mense) concerning directorship and company property. Defendants filed written statements in July 2004 disclosing sale deed dated 09/03/2004 in favour of defendant No.3. High Court in Writ Petition Nos.279, 362 and 626 of 2006 decided on 16/01/2015 quashed order dated 28/10/2005 and modified trial court order. Plaintiff filed amendment application in February 2016. Trial court allowed amendment on 06/05/2016. Trial court rejected applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on 19/08/2016. Defendants filed present writ petitions and civil revision applications challenging these orders. Court reserved judgment on 19 January 2023 and pronounced on 27 January 2023.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 6 Rule 17; Order 7 Rule 11
- Companies Act, 1956:
