Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 270 (ORI)

Maa Jagadamba Traders v. Goodlass Nerolac Paints

2007-04-16

R.N.BISWAL

body2007
ORDER 16.4.2007 — Even though the case was listed to date for admission, on the request and consent of learned counsel for both parties, the case is taken up for final disposal. Heard. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.11.2006 passed by the S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack in I.C.C. No.38 of 2005, wherein he allowed the petition for amendment of the name of the complainant-Company and the name of the first power of attorney holder. On 7.11.2006 an amendment petition was filed on behalf of the complainant-opp. party and the amendment sought for reads as follows:- “(A) In Column-1 of the Complaint petition the word “Kansai” is to be substituted in place of M/s. Goodlass and in the same column in line-2, 3 & 4 the words “Administrative Officer Sri Tapas Kumar Mukherjee, S/o. Late Sachindranath Mukherjee be deleted and in such place the following words “Commercial Officer Madhab Chandra Nayak, S/o. Sunakar Nayak” be inserted. B) In paragraph-1 of Column-8 of the complaint petition the word “Kansai” is to be substituted in place of “Godlass” and in line one of the same paragraph after the word “Limited” and before the word “is” the following words- “formerly known as Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd.” be added.” The petition was allowed on 14.11.2006. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present CRLMC has been preferred as stated earlier. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has no power to amend the complaint petition and as such, it ought not to have substituted Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., for M/s. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. particularly in absence of any document that the former Company took all the liabilities of the latter Company and that since Tapas Kumar Mukherjee had already filed an affidavit on the basis of which the complaint case proceeded, the name of Madhab Chandra Nayak ought not to have substituted in place of his name. Per contra learned counsel for the complainant-opp.party submits that where justice so demands a complaint petition can be amended. In the case at hand when the complainant-Company changed its name from M/s. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. to Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. after filing of the complaint petition the trial Court rightly amended the name of the complainant-Company. Per contra learned counsel for the complainant-opp.party submits that where justice so demands a complaint petition can be amended. In the case at hand when the complainant-Company changed its name from M/s. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. to Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. after filing of the complaint petition the trial Court rightly amended the name of the complainant-Company. Simi¬larly, since Tapas Kumar Mukherjee, the first power of attorney holder resigned from service, there was no alternative than to execute a power of attorney in favour of an equally competent Officer of the Company to proceed with the case. Madhab Chandra Nayak, Commercial Officer of the Company being competent to prosecute the case, his name was rightly substituted in place of Tapas Kumar Mukherjee. Hence, learned counsel for the opp.party-Company urges to dismiss the CRLMC. A Magistrate has power to amend the complaint petition where it is required to secure the ends of justice. So, I cannot subscribe to the view of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Magistrate has no such power. In the present, case as the complainant-Company changed its name from M/s. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. to Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. after filing of the complaint petition, it sought for amendment of its original name and accordingly it was allowed. When Tapas Kumar Mukherjee, the first power of attorney holder resigned from service, the opp.party-complainant-Company executed another power of attorney in favour of Madhab Chandra Nayak, an equally competent Officer. So, in my view there is no illegality, perversity or procedural irregularities in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court by invoking the extraordinary power bestowed upon it under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Under such circumstances, the CRLMC stands dismissed and the order of the trial Court is hereby confirmed. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. CRLMC dismissed.