Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

T.N. ALLOY FOUNDRY CO. LTD. versus T.N. ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.

Decided
12 February 2004
Judges listed
V.N. KHARE, S.B. SINHA, S.H. KAPADIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2004] 2 S.C.R. 352 · 2004 INSC 102
Also cited as
  • (2004) 3 SCC 392 (37 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 5 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

The appellant herein is incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and started its commercial production in the year 1982. It appears that subsequently it became sick. It is alleged that the appellant-Company could not run because of non-supply of electrical energy by the respondents herein. It is under such circumstances, the appellant herein filed a suit for damages against respondents for the damage suffered during the period commencing from 28th March, 1983 to 16th October, 1992. The said suit was filed sometime in March, 1993 on the Original Side of the Madras High Court. In July, 1998, the appellant herein filed an interlocutory application for amendment of the plaint. By the said application for amendment, the appellant sought to enhance its claim for damages. The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the amendment, as prayed for. The respondents herein went in appeal before the Letters Patent Bench before the High Court and the Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal. It is against the said order and judgment, the appellant is in appeal before us.

pp. 352–353, margin G

Shri T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appelJant, urged that the view taken by the High Court in rejecting the amendment of the appell~nt was erroneous. The law as regards permitting amendment to the plaint, is well settled. In L.J Leach and Co. Ltd. and Anr: v. Messrs. Jardine Skinner and Co., AIR (1957) SC 357 [1957] SCR 438, it was held that the Court as a rule decline to allow amendments, if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of the application. But that is a factor to be taken into account in exercise of the discretion as to whether amendment should be ordered and does not affect the power of the Court to order it.

p. 353, margin B

It is not disputed that the appellate court has a co-extensive power of the trial court. We find that the discretion exercise by the High Court in rejecting the plaint was in conformity with law.

p. 353, margin D

For the aforesaid reason, we do not find any merit in the appeal. It fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. R.P. Appeal dismissed

p. 353, margin E