ASIAN HOTELS (NORTH) LTD. versus ALOK KUMAR LODHA & ORS

ASIAN HOTELS (NORTH) LTD. versus ALOK KUMAR LODHA & ORS

The High Court erred in allowing applications under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 to permit plaintiffs in suits challenging revocation of licenses to amend their plaints to challenge all mortgages/charges on the entire premises and to implead mortgagee banks; such amendments would change the nature of the suits, risk misjoinder of causes of action, and plaintiffs (licensees) lack locus to challenge longstanding mortgages over the entire premises which they were aware of under the license agreement; accordingly the High Court orders allowing the amendments and impleadments were quashed and set aside.

Parties
Appellant / Original Defendant No.1: ASIAN HOTELS (NORTH) LTD.; Respondents / Original Plaintiffs: Alok Kumar Lodha & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order
Outcome
Appeals allowed; impugned High Court orders quashed and set aside; no order as to costs
Legal Topics
Amendment of Plaint, Joinder of Necessary and Proper Parties, License Revocation, Challenge to Mortgages/charges, Limitation and Laches, Dominus Litis Principle, Misjoinder of Causes of Action
Civil Procedure Property Arbitration Companies Law Amendment of Plaint Joinder of Necessary and Proper Parties License Revocation Challenge to Mortgages/charges +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ASIAN HOTELS (NORTH) LTD.

Appellant / Original Defendant No.1

Alok Kumar Lodha & Ors.

Respondents / Original Plaintiffs

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs in suits challenging revocation of licenses can amend plaint to challenge mortgages/charges on the entire premises and implead mortgagee banks
  2. 2 Whether the mortgagee banks/financial institutions are necessary and/or proper parties to the suits
  3. 3 Whether permitting the amendment would change the nature of the suits and result in misjoinder of causes of action

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in allowing applications under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 to permit plaintiffs in suits challenging revocation of licenses to amend their plaints to challenge all mortgages/charges on the entire premises and to implead mortgagee banks; such amendments would change the nature of the suits, risk misjoinder of causes of action, and plaintiffs (licensees) lack locus to challenge longstanding mortgages over the entire premises which they were aware of under the license agreement; accordingly the High Court orders allowing the amendments and impleadments were quashed and set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; impugned High Court orders quashed and set aside; no order as to costs

Orders

  • Impugned orders allowing applications under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure are quashed and set aside
  • No order as to costs