M/S Jindal Itf Limited vs Jdr Business Pvt Ltd And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 48 Cal/2

CD-8

                       IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                        Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
                                 ORIGINAL SIDE

                                IA NO. GA/5/2022
                                 In CS/206/2021

                            M/S JINDAL ITF LIMITED
                                     Vs
                        JDR BUSINESS PVT LTD AND ORS.


  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE

Date : 5th January, 2023.

Appearance:

Mr. Kumarjit Banerjee, Adv.

Ms. Sanchari Chakroborty, Adv.

Mr. Sourojit Dasgupta, Adv.

Ms. Akansha Chowdhury, Adv.

...for the plaintiff

Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, Adv.

Mr. Soumyajit Mishra, Adv.

...for the defendant no. 1

Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Adv.

Mr. S. Dasgupta, Adv.

Mr. Ritesh Kr. Ganguly, Adv.

...for the defendant no. 3

The Court:- Affidavit-in-Reply filed in Court today be taken on record.

This is an application by the defendant no. 3 for expunging his name from

the array of the defendants. The defendant no. 3 says that nowhere in the plaint,

there is any positive assertion against the said defendant to make him liable for

any action of the company being the defendant no. 1. The defendant no. 3 says

that the transaction was between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1. Even if the

defendant no. 3 was a Director of defendant no. 1 at the relevant point of time, he

is not responsible as the said defendant did not act in breach of any fiduciary

duties as a Director. The defendant no. 3 cites three judgments respectively

reported in (1992) 2 SCC 524 (Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal

Corporation of Greater Bombay And Others), 2010 SCC OnLine Delhi 2776

(Mukesh Hans vs. Uma Bhasin) and 2018 SCC OnLine Dehli 10772 (M/s. Faith

Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Simbhaoli sugars Ltd. & Ors.) in support of this

contention. Referring to these judgments the defendant no. 3 says, unless there

is any statement in the plaint as against the said defendant which at least

requires his presence at the time of adjudication of the issues involved in this

suit, he cannot be said to be a proper party and by no chance the said defendant

is a necessary party. In the present case, the defendant no. 3 says, in absence of

such averments he is neither a proper party nor necessary party. The name of

the defendant no. 3 should, therefore, be deleted from the array of the defendants

in the suit. Due to paucity of time the arguments could not be completed by the

defendant no. 3

Let this matter appear on 24th January, 2023.

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)

S.Bag