Khaitan Consultants Limited v. Sulata De And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

The judgment addresses Civil Appeals Nos. 162 and 166 of 2007 filed by parties aggrieved by a common judgment of the High Court of Calcutta dated 01-04-2005 in Sambhunath Mitra v. Khaitan Consultant Ltd. (2005 SCC OnLine Cal 189; AIR 2005 Cal 281).

The Supreme Court heard counsel for both sides and, on a short ground concerning amendment of pleadings, set aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court then issued consequential directions regarding restoration of the appeals before the High Court, the possibility of seeking amendment of the plaint through an application, a monthly deposit to be made by a person claiming tenancy (Smt Sulata De), scheduling of hearing before the High Court, and continuation of status quo for a specified period.

The judgment also separately disposes of Civil Appeal No. 4458 of 2008, which was sought to be withdrawn as infructuous.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the High Court was justified in constraining one of the parties to amend the plaint.
2. What consequential procedural directions should follow upon setting aside the High Court’s judgment (including restoration, amendment application procedure, and interim arrangements).

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

After hearing learned counsel for both sides, the Court held that the High Court “ought not to have constrained one of the parties to amend the plaint.” Treating this as sufficient to decide the matter, the Court set aside the impugned High Court judgment on this short ground.

The Court then structured the post-remand procedure: it directed restoration of the appeals to their original numbers before the High Court and clarified that the concerned party could seek permission to amend the plaint by filing an appropriate application, which the High Court must decide “in accordance with law.”

The Court also passed interim/protective directions during pendency: a person claiming tenancy (Smt Sulata De) was directed to deposit Rs. 25,000 per month with effect from September 2015, to be deposited with the High Court by cheque in favour of the Registrar (Appellate Side), instead of the court where deposits were previously being made. It fixed a date for notification of hearing before the High Court (02-11-2015), permitted parties to raise all permissible contentions, and ordered continuation of status quo until 30-11-2015, with liberty to the High Court to modify the status quo order after hearing the parties if necessary.

In Civil Appeal No. 4458 of 2008, the Court granted permission to withdraw the appeal as infructuous and disposed it accordingly.

Holding and Implications

ALLOWED / DISPOSED OF: Civil Appeals Nos. 162 and 166 of 2007 were disposed of as allowed (with no order as to costs), and the High Court’s judgment dated 01-04-2005 was set aside on the ground that the High Court ought not to have constrained a party to amend the plaint.

Consequential Directions: The matters were to be restored to their original numbers before the High Court; the concerned party was left free to file an application seeking amendment of the plaint, to be decided by the High Court in accordance with law. Interim directions included a revised monthly deposit of Rs. 25,000 from September 2015 by Smt Sulata De (claiming tenancy), deposit to be made with the High Court (Registrar, Appellate Side), scheduling before the High Court on 02-11-2015, liberty to raise all legally permissible contentions, and continuation of status quo until 30-11-2015 subject to possible modification by the High Court after hearing parties.

WITHDRAWN: Civil Appeal No. 4458 of 2008 was disposed of as withdrawn after permission was granted on the ground that it had become infructuous.

Implications: The immediate effect was to undo the High Court judgment and return the matter to the High Court for further proceedings, including any amendment request to be decided through an appropriate application. The opinion does not indicate any broader doctrinal holding beyond these case-specific procedural directions, and it does not state that any new precedent was laid down.