No Arbitration Agreement, No Arbitrator: Supreme Court Voids Award Made Without Municipal Council's Consent, Calls Entire Proceedings "Coram Non Judice" Post-Disposal Miscellaneous Applications Maintainable Only In Rare Situations; Court Becomes Functus Officio After SLP Dismissal: Supreme Court Vague & Omnibus Allegations Against Relatives In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Nipped In The Bud; 7-Year Delay In FIR Fatal: Supreme Court State Can Withdraw Electricity Duty Exemption For Captive Power Plants In Public Interest But Must Give One-Year Notice Period: Supreme Court DSC Personnel Entitled To Second Pension; Shortfall In Service Up To 12 Months Can Be Condoned: Supreme Court Person Professing Christianity Cannot Claim Scheduled Caste Status To Invoke SC/ST Act: Supreme Court Except Matters One May, But Exclude Justice One Cannot: Supreme Court Restores Arbitral Award, Holds State Cannot Be Judge In Its Own Cause On Disputed Breach When State Requisitions Your Vehicle For Elections And It Kills Someone, The State Pays — Not Your Insurer: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Financial Burden Cannot Defeat Constitutional Right to Just Compensation: Supreme Court Unsigned Charge Is A Curable Irregularity, Won't Vitiate Trial Unless 'Failure Of Justice' Is Shown: Supreme Court Tenant Files Fresh Petition Before Rent Authority After Supreme Court Dismisses SLP, Review And Misc Application — Court Calls It "Gross Abuse of Process", Voids Restoration Order Taxation Law | Exemption For Naphtha Depends On 'Intended Use' At Procurement, Not Actual Exclusive Use: Supreme Court Army's Own Grading System Worked Against Women Officers For Years — Supreme Court Grants Permanent Commission, Pension To Short Service Women Officers

High Court Sets Aside Plaint Against Petitioner  ‘No Personal Liability’ in Recovery Suit”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has allowed a revision petition filed by Arun Wadhwa and another, effectively setting aside the plaint against them in a recovery suit filed by M/s Chandan Textiles. The decision, reserved on October 16 and announced on November 24, was presided over by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Karamjit Singh.

The petitioners had sought the rejection of the plaint filed against them under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), contending they were wrongly implicated in the business dealings of defendant No.1, a sole proprietorship firm. The original suit by the plaintiff, M/s Chandan Textiles, demanded a recovery of `18,91,005/- and a permanent injunction, alleging the involvement of the petitioners in the business transactions.

In a detailed judgment, Justice Karamjit Singh observed, “In the instant case, the allegations in plaint do not refer to any transaction with the petitioners in their personal capacity.” The Court found that the transactions were directly between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, with no assertions in the plaint of any contract or undertaking by the petitioners to make the disputed payments.

The High Court’s decision underlines a crucial aspect of civil litigation, emphasizing the need for clear cause of action in suits involving multiple defendants. Justice Singh noted, “It being so petitioners are neither necessary nor proper party for the purpose of proper adjudication of the suit.” This observation effectively clears the petitioners of any personal liability in the matter.

Date of Decision: 24.11.2023

Arun Wadhwa and another VS M/s Chandan Textiles and others

Latest Legal News