ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Kulkarni Engineering Associates Ltd. & Ors.

Facts:

The Ld. Presiding Officer erred in observing that there was no explanation forthcoming explaining the reasons for the delay in applying for substitution. The finding that the earlier application filed by Sangli Bank as I.A. No. 62/2015 was rejected also on the grounds of delay, amongst other grounds, is erroneous. That application was rejected solely on the ground that the Applicant Bank did not have the locus because it was no longer in existence because of the amalgamation. The reasons for the delay in applying for substitution were already explained in I.A. No. 62/2015. The Ld. Presiding Officer was not justified in dismissing the application for substitution on the ground of limitation. Although the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) do not apply to the proceedings before the D.R.T., the principles do apply. Under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, the court has the power to add any party at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and exercising that power, a plaintiff could be substituted. The proceedings before the D.R.T. in the O.A. were considered as stayed consequent to the order of the D.R.A.T. in Misc. Appeal No. 150/2004. It was only subsequently that the Presiding Officer realized that the stay operated only against the fourth Defendant and not against the rest of the Defendants. Only when the O.A. was taken up for consideration did the Applicant realize the necessity of substituting Sangli Bank with ICICI Bank. There is absolutely no embargo for the D.R.T. to substitute the Applicant whose presence before the Tribunal was necessary to enable the Tribunal to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the proceedings. The Tribunal should not be pedantic in its approach, and substantial justice is what should be intended to be imparted.

Arguments by Parties:

Appellant (ICICI Bank Ltd.):

Respondents:

The Respondents were served but did not appear to contest the appeal.

Cases Cited:

Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was referred to regarding the power of the court to add any party at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and exercising that power, a plaintiff could be substituted.

Sections and Laws Referred:

The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) were referred to in relation to their applicability to the proceedings before the D.R.T.

Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC was specifically referred to regarding the power of the court to add or substitute parties.