Quick Summary: In a case involving M/S Foress Impex Pvt Ltd and M/S M R Logistics India Pvt Ltd, the Madras High Court decided against adding new people to a counterclaim. The court stressed the importance of sticking to the original parties unless absolutely necessary.
Who’s Involved? - Petitioner: M/S Foress Impex Pvt Ltd, based in Chennai. - Respondent: M/S M R Logistics India Pvt Ltd, also from Chennai.
This legal battle took place at the Madras High Court, with Judge R. Sakthivel in charge of the case.
What’s the Fight About? - M/S M R Logistics filed a case against Foress Impex and another person, asking for ₹9,16,079 with 18% interest per year from the filing date until payment.
Counterclaims Galore - Foress Impex fought back. They filed a counterclaim asking for ₹11,51,957.98, also with 18% interest, from M/R Logistics.
Adding More Players? - Foress Impex wanted to bring five more people into the case, saying they were needed to resolve the counterclaim. This request was made in 2017.
Trial Court’s Take - The trial court emphasized that M/R Logistics, as the one who filed the case, had the right to decide who to sue. The court denied adding the new people, stating the plaintiff didn't ask for anything against them.
High Court’s Stand - Judge R. Sakthivel agreed with the trial court's decision on November 28, 2025. The court ruled that the defendants could not add new people to their counterclaim. If Foress Impex thought others were needed, they could file a separate case.
"The person who files the case is in charge and can decide who should be part of the case."
Arguments by Foress Impex - They argued that the counterclaim should be treated as a separate case, allowing them to add necessary people.
Arguments by M/R Logistics - M/R Logistics argued that new people weren't needed for the current dispute. They suggested that Foress Impex could call them as witnesses instead.
The court decided that Foress Impex could not add new people to their counterclaim and should file a separate case if they believed others were necessary. This decision helps keep legal cases straightforward and avoids adding more people without a clear reason.
