Lokesh Dhawan vs. Arun Dhawan & Ors.
Background
Three brothers were in a dispute over their late father's estate, including a family company (Dhawan Electricals). The petitioner had filed a partition suit in 2012 over immovable properties, and separately filed a company-law case (before the erstwhile Company Law Board, now NCLT) alleging his brother had fraudulently transferred their father's majority shareholding to himself just before his death. Two years after filing the partition suit, the petitioner sought to amend his plaint to also claim a share of the (disputed) company shares and other movable assets, but the trial court rejected this amendment.
Decision Breakdown
The High Court agreed with the trial court's rejection, for two main reasons: first, since the legality of the share transfer was already pending before the specialized NCLT (which has full power to decide such company disputes), the ordinary civil court could not simultaneously decide to include those very shares in a partition suit. Second, given that the petitioner was himself a salary-drawing director of the family company, it was highly improbable he only learned of the share transfer years later, meaning he had not exercised the "due diligence" the law requires before allowing such a late amendment. The petition challenging the trial court's rejection was accordingly dismissed.
Lesson Learnt
A litigant who wants to add a new claim to an existing lawsuit through amendment must show they acted diligently and could not reasonably have known the relevant facts earlier: courts will scrutinize amendment requests carefully, especially where a party who held an insider position (like a company director) claims to have been unaware of major company events for years.