Delhi High Court
Rajeev Surana vs M/S. Ocm India Ltd. & Ors. on 13 August, 2014
$~ 15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 1524/2011
% Judgment dated 13.08.2014
RAJEEV SURANA ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr.Siddharth Yadav and
Mr.Wasim Ashraf, Advocates
versus
M/S OCM INDIA LTD & ORS ..... Defendant
Through: Mr.Rajeev Dutta, Sr. Advocate
with Mr.Amit Kumar Mishra, Mr.Akshat
Hansaria, Mr.Archit Virmani and Mr.Siddharth
Dutta, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
I.A. 1088/2014
1.
This is an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which has been filed by
the plaintiff, by which plaintiff primarily seeks to amend / incorporate
paragraphs 25, 26 and 27 of the plaint to quantify the damages with regard
to the entitlement of the plaintiff with respect to the shares and secondly
the plaintiff wishes to include the relief of damages for loss of
employment on account of the illegal and wrongful termination of the
plaintiff.
2. At the outset, Mr.Yadav, counsel for the plaintiff has restricted his prayer
with regard to the quantification of damages with respect to the shares.
With respect to the second prayer so made for amendment, counsel for the
plaintiff reserves his right to seek appropriate remedy as may be available
to him in accordance with law.
3. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the amendment sought is imperative
for proper and effective adjudication of the case. He also submits that for
the amendment with regard to quantification of the amount with regard to
the shares, foundation has already been laid in the plaint and the
amendment only quantifies the extent of amount sought to be recovered
on account of non-allotment of 23,22,105 shares by the defendant no.1,
company.
4. The amendment is opposed by learned senior counsel for the defendants
on the ground that the plaintiff has not been diligent and the amendments
sought could have been raised at the very first opportunity available at the
time of filing of the suit and secondly the amendments sought would
materially alter and substitute the cause of action.
5. Counsel for the defendant has also opposed the prayer on the ground that
the plaintiff is not entitled to any share, moreover, no shares were allotted
to the plaintiff during the course of his employment.
6. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their rival
submissions. Perusal of the plaint would show that the foundation has
been laid by the plaintiff with regard to the allotment of shares. The
objection which is sought to be raised by counsel for the defendant is
without any force, as the same is on the merits of the matter.
7. By allowing the application, the Court does not opine on the merits of the
issue involved between the parties. In my view the amendment which is
sought would neither change the character of the suit and by quantifying
the damages would only lead to proper and effective adjudication of the
case. Accordingly, the amendment is allowed. Prayer (B) of the plaint
would read as under:
"Pass a decree of declaration in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendants declaring that the
plaintiff is entitled to an amount equal to 23,22,105
( twenty three lakh twenty two thousand one
hundred and five) shares in the defendant no.1
company or an amount equal to 23,22,105 shares
and wherever the plaintiff has claimed allotment of
shares, the above lines will be added."
8. All other claims of the plaintiff, as per the plaint shall remain unchanged.
The application is partially allowed, in above terms. Liberty is granted to
the plaintiff to file a fresh suit, if the remedy is available, in accordance
with law.
CS(OS) 1524/2011
9. Let the amended plaint be filed within four weeks. Written statement to
the amended plaint be filed within four weeks thereafter.
10. List the matter before Court on 11.11.2014 for framing of issues. Parties
shall bring suggested issues to Court on the next date of hearing.
G.S.SISTANI, J
AUGUST 13, 2014
ssn
