Calcutta High Court
Skipper Limited vs Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited ... on 8 September, 2025
OCD-50
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
ORIGINAL SIDE
CS-COM/14/2024
IA No. GA-COM/4/2025
SKIPPER LIMITED
VS
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED AND ANR
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO
Date : September 8, 2025.
Appearance :
Mr. Sayantan Bose, Adv.
Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay, Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Gope, Adv.
... for the plaintiff
Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Aritra Basu, Adv.
Mr. Uttam Kumar Mandal, Adv.
Mrs. Maitree Roy, Adv.
... for the defendant no.1
1.
The plaintiff has filed the present application being GA-COM/4/2025
praying for amendment in the cause title of the plaint by incorporating
the name of the Resolution Professional, namely, Mr. Maligi
Madhusudhan Reddy, IBBI Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-
P00843/2017-2018/11427, having his office at MMREDDY & CO., 4 th
Floor, HSR Eden, Road No.2, Banjarahills, Hyderabad, Telengana,
Pin-500034 outside the jurisdiction aforesaid.
2. The plaintiff has served the copy of this application to the IRP through
post as well as e-mail but in spite of receipt of the notice, IRP has not
appeared in the matter.
3. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that after filing of the suit, the
plaintiff came to know that by an order dated 4th June, 2024, the
National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in CP No.
69/9/HDB/2023 has appointed Mr. Pankaj Bhattad as IRP under
Section 13(1)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Subsequently, by an order dated 23rd July, 2024, Mr. Maligi
Madhushdhan Reddy was appointed as IRP instead of Mr. Pankaj
Bhattad.
4. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has not
prayed for any relief against the defendant no.2 in the plaint and the
defendant no.2 is not a necessary party but is a proper party for
adjudication of the suit filed by the plaintiff and as such, the
defendant no.2 has gone into CIRP and IRP has been appointed, thus,
the IRP is to be made party being the representative of the defendant
no.2.
5. Mr. Aritra Basu, Learned Advocate appearing for the defendant no.1
submits that the Resolution Professional cannot be made as a party
being the representative of the defendant no.2 in terms of Section 25
of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and he has relied upon
Section 25(b) of the said Code and submitted that IRP has no
authority to defend the suit on behalf of the defendant no.2 before this
Court. He submits that the plaintiff had the knowledge that the
publication was made on 6th June, 2024 but the plaintiff has not
made any claim and subsequently, the Learned Tribunal has
appointed IRP and during moratorium, IRP cannot be made as party
to the instant suit being the representative of the defendant no.2.
6. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgment in the
case of SSMP Industries Ltd. vs. Perkan Food Processors Pvt. Ltd.
reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9339 and submitted that unless
the proceeding has the effect of endangering, diminishing, dissipating
or adversely impacting the assets of corporate debtor, it would not be
prohibited under Section 14(1)(a) of the Code. He submits that in the
present case also the plaintiff has not claimed against the defendant
no.2 and as such, there is no bar for making the IRP as party being
the representative of the defendant no.2.
7. Mr. Basu, Learned Advocate appearing for the defendant no.1 has
relied upon the judgment in the case of Alchemist Asset
Reconstruction Company Limited vs. Hotel Gaudawan Private
Limited and Others reported in (2018) 16 Supreme Court Cases 94
and submitted that the mandate of the new Insolvency Code is that
the moment an insolvency petition is admitted, the moratorium that
comes into effect under Section 14(1)(a) expressly interdicts institution
or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against corporate
debtors. Mr. Basu submits that admittedly in the present case the
moratorium has come into effect and IRP has been appointed and as
such, the suit cannot be proceeded against the defendant no.2.
8. Heard Learned Counsel for the respective parties. Perused the
materials on record.
9. This Court finds that the plaintiff has not prayed for any relief in the
plaint against the defendant no.2. Prayer (a) which is the
consequential prayer in the plaint reads as follows :-
"a) Decree for Rs. 2,01,14,234/- against the defendant No.1 in
terms of paragraph 25 hereof;"
10. In paragraph 30 of the plaint, the plaintiff has made the following
averments :-
"30) The cause of action of the plaintiff as against the defendant
no.1 is independent from that of the defendant no. 2. The plaintiff
is also entitled to separate relief as against the defendant no. 2.
The plaintiff, however, is not claiming any relief as against the
defendant no. 2 in the instant suit by reason of a forum selection
clause in the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant
no. 2. The plaintiff is entitled to file a separate suit in respect of
the cause of action which is independent and separate as against
the defendant no. 2 in the appropriate Court at Hyderabad. The
presence of the defendant no. 2, however, is otherwise necessary
for adjudication of the issues raised in this suit."
11. Mr. Basu has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement
made in paragraph 23 of the plaint which reads as follows :-
"The obligation of the defendant no. 1 to make such payment is
direct and/or in any event joint and/or several and/or co-
extensive with the defendant no. 2."
12. This Court finds that the plaintiff has not prayed for any relief
against the defendant no. 2. In paragraph 30 also the plaintiff has
categorically mentioned that the cause of action of the plaintiff as
against the defendant 1 is independent from that of the defendant
no.2. The plaintiff is also entitled to separate relief as against the
defendant no.2. However, the plaintiff is not claiming any relief
against the defendant no.2 in the present suit. Taking into
consideration of the said statement and the prayer made by the
plaintiff in the plaint, this Court is of the view that the defendant
no.2 being a proper party and not a necessary party, the defendant
no.2 is to be made party for adjudication of the suit but now IRP has
been appointed and the defendant no. 2 is in CIRP. Accordingly, this
Court finds that only for the purpose of adjudication of the case, as
the plaintiff is not claiming any relief against the defendant no.2,
Resolution Professional can be made as party to the suit being the
representative of the defendant no.2.
13. In view of the above, the amendment, as sought for by the plaintiff is
allowed.
14. The department is directed to make necessary amendment in terms
of the proposed amendment as indicated by the plaintiff within a
period of two weeks from date. After the amendment is carried out,
the plaintiff is directed to reverify and reaffirm the affidavit within a
week thereafter and to serve the copy of the amended plaint to the
defendant no.2 through the IRP and the IRP is at liberty to appear in
the matter to defend the case on behalf of the defendant no.2.
15. GA-COM/4/2025 is disposed of.
(KRISHNA RAO, J.)
RS
