Karnataka High Court
Ms Jahan Aara vs Swiss Re Global Business Solutions ... on 25 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:38874
RFA No. 1536 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1536 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
MS. JAHAN AARA
D/O SHRI SYED AZZEZSULLA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT REGENCY LA MAJADA
CALENDULA BLOCK,
FLAT NO. GC 28/1
HENNUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 043.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI VINAYAKA S. PANDIT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SWISS RE GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
Location: HIGH MR. AMIT KALRA,
COURT OF CIN: U74140KA2000PTC027640
KARNATAKA 2ND TO 5TH FLOOR,
FAIRWINDS BUILDING,
EMBASSY GOLF LINKS,
BUSINESS PARK, CHALLAGHATTA VILLAGE,
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560071.
2. SWISS RE GOLBAL BUSINES SOLUTIONS
INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
REP. BY HR LEAD ARUN NAYAR,
2ND TO 5TH FLOOR,
FAIRWINDS BUILDING,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:38874
RFA No. 1536 of 2023
HC-KAR
EMBASSY GOLF LINKS,
BUSINESS PARK, CHALLAGHATTA VILLAGE,
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560071.
3. MS. SABINE BAECHLER
DIRECTOR HEAD NON TECHNICAL
ACCOUNTING SWISS REINSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
SWISS RE NEXT,
MYTHENQUAI 50/60,
8022 ZURICH, SWITZERLAND.
4. MR. JAMES WILLAMS,
DIRECTOR HEAD ASIA CFO OFFICE,
SWISS RE ASIA PVT. LTD.,
12 MARINA VIEW, NO.16-01,
ASIA SQUARE TOWER 2
SINGAPORE-018961.
5. CRISTIAN MUMENTHALER,
CEO OF SWISS RE GROUP,
SWISS REINSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
MYTHENQUAI 50/60,
8022 ZURICH, SWITZERLAND.
6. MOSES OJEISEKHOBA,
CEO OF REINSURANCE,
SWISS REINSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
MYTHENQUAI 50/60,
8022 ZURICH, SWITZERLAND.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SUSHAL TIWARI N., ADVOCATE, FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI PRASANNA DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE, FOR
SRI SKANDA ARUNKUMAR, ADVOCATE, FOR R5 AND R6)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41
OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.04.2023 PASSED ON
I.A.NO.4 IN O.S.NO.3834/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C XXXVII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE,
ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF CPC
FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:38874
RFA No. 1536 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
This Regular First Appeal is directed against the order dated 18.04.2023 on I.A No. 4 in OS No. 3834/2019, on the file of the 37th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru ('the trial Court' for short), whereby the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
2. The settled proposition of law is that a plaint can be rejected only upon a meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole, and such rejection is warranted where the plaint discloses no cause of action, or is barred by law on the face of its averments, as reiterated by the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead Through L.Rs and Others1v (Dahiben), Sri Biswanath Banik and Another v. Sulanga Bose and Others2 (Biswanath Banik). 1 (2020) 7 SCC 366 2 (2022) 7 SCC 731 -4- NC: 2025:KHC:38874 RFA No. 1536 of 2023 HC-KAR Equally settled is the proposition of law that the Civil Courts cannot enforce a contract of personal service, save in limited exceptions carved out by the Apex Court in the case of Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. vs Manorama Sirsi3, namely (i) dismissal of a public servant in contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution; (ii) reinstatement of a workman under industrial law; (iii) termination by a statutory body in breach of statutory mandate. Outside of these categories, wrongful termination in private employment, can only give rise to a claim for damages and not to reinstatement, injunction or declaration of subsistence of service, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Limited vs C. P. Sebastian4, State Bank of India and Others vs S. N. Goyal5, Raj Kumar M vs Eurofins IT Solutions Private Limited6 Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. Limited, Rae Bareli and Another v. 3 (2004) 3 SCC 172 4 (2009) 14 SCC 360 5 (2008) 8 SCC 92 6 RFA No. 1387/2023 decided on 20.08.2025 -5- NC: 2025:KHC:38874 RFA No. 1536 of 2023 HC-KAR Badri Nath Dixit and Others7. Applying these principles to the present case the present First Appeal needs to be assessed.
3. The plaintiff filed OS No. 3834 of 2019, seeking reliefs inter alia (a) to declare the termination letter dated 24.04.2019 as null and void; (b) To direct defendant company to revoke the illegal termination and issue a relieving letter; (c) To direct the company to provide bona fide details of the plaintiff during background checks and to honour the provident fund obligation; (d) To direct to pay Rs. One Crore as damages for the losses caused by the arbitrary termination; and (e) to reimburse the legal fees incurred.
Reliefs after amendments.
4. By way of subsequent amendments, the reliefs were altered as follows :
7
(1991) 3 SCC 54.-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:38874 RFA No. 1536 of 2023 HC-KAR
(i) By amendment dated 03.01.2023, the plaintiff deleted prayers (b) and (c) and in their place, the following were substituted :
(bb) consequently, declare that the prohibition placed on the plaintiff to enter the workplace and perform her duties is bad.
(cc) consequently, reinstate the plaintiff on the rolls of the company with effect from 24.04.2019 till she is removed from service in accordance with law (dd) consequently, grant an order of permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from preventing the plaintiff from working until removed from employment in accordance with law.
(ii) by amendment dated 10.01.2023, the plaintiff reiterated and refined prayer (bb) to emphasise the -7- NC: 2025:KHC:38874 RFA No. 1536 of 2023 HC-KAR challenge to the prohibition placed on her from discharging her duties.
(iii) By amendment dated 25.01.2023, the plaintiff expressly deleted prayer (d) for damages of Rs 1 Crore.
5. Thus after series of amendments, the surviving reliefs sought by the plaintiff are :
(a) to declare the termination letter dated 24.04.2019 as null and void ;
(b) (bb) consequently, declare that the prohibition placed on the plaintiff to enter the workplace and perform her duties is bad;
(c) (cc) to reinstate the plaintiff on the rolls of the company with effect from 24.04.2019 till she is removed from service in accordance with law;
(d) (dd) to grant a permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from preventing the plaintiff from working until removed from the employment in accordance with law.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:38874 RFA No. 1536 of 2023 HC-KAR
(e) to direct the defendant company to reimburse the legal fees incurred by the plaintiff unnecessarily.
(f) for costs of the suit and such other reliefs as the Court deems fit.
6. The defendants moved under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by law as it sought enforcement of a contract of personal service. The trial Court vide the impugned order allowed the application and rejected the plaint.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that,
(i) the trial Court erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. A plain reading of the amended plaint discloses a clear cause of action. The reliefs sought are not restricted only to reinstatement but also include a declaration that the termination letter dated 24.04.2019 is illegal, claim of damages, and other consequential reliefs. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC:38874 RFA No. 1536 of 2023 HC-KAR
(ii) The amended plaint contains prayer (a) seeking a declaration that the termination is void and illegal, consequential reliefs, namely prayers (bb), (cc) and (dd), seek to declare the prohibition imposed on the plaintiff from entering the workplace as bad, and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendant from preventing her from working until lawfully removed. Further reliefs also include grant of damages and reimbursement of legal expenses. It is therefore contended that the suit is not confined only to the enforcement of a contract of personal service but also seeks independent reliefs in damages.
(iii) Learned Senior Counsel emphasizes that Section 9 of CPC confirms jurisdiction upon Civil Courts to try all suits of a civil nature unless expressly or impliedly barred. The termination letter is alleged to be stigmatic and arbitrary, which itself give rise to a cause of action for declaratory relief. It is argued that Section 14 (b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, ('the Act' for short) only bars
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38874 RFA No. 1536 of 2023 HC-KAR specific performance of a contract of personal service to the limited extent of reinstatement. However, the bar does not extend to a suit for declaration, damages or other consequential reliefs. Therefore, even if reinstatement may be impermissible, the other relief sought by the plaintiff cannot be shut out at the threshold.
(iv) Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. vs Mahaveer Lunia8 (Vinod Infra). It is urged that the Apex Court has reiterated the principle that while exercising jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court must take a holistic and meaningful reading of the plaint. If even one of the reliefs claimed is legally sustainable, the plaint cannot be rejected in its entirety. Partial rejection is impermissible. Further, reliance is placed upon the decision in Sri Boyenepally SriJayavardhan vs V. Nirupama Reddy and Others 8 AIR 2025 SC 2933
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38874 RFA No. 1536 of 2023 HC-KAR (Boyenepally)9 to contend that the rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can only be made if the plaint on the face of it, discloses no cause of action or falls squarely under the defined grounds. It is contended that the Apex Court observed that where the plaint has sought multiple reliefs, and one or more of them survive legal scrutiny, the suit cannot be terminated at the threshold. Instead, the matter must proceed to trial to allow parties to lead evidence. By placing reliance on the above judgments, it is contended that even if some of the prayers (such as reinstatement) may be barred under Section 14 (b) of the Specific Relief Act, other reliefs such as declaration of stigmatic termination and claim of damages are maintainable. Hence the plaint could not have been rejected in toto and the trial Court has erred in invoking Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint in its entirety when at least one relief survives. 9 (SLP C. No. 5732 of 2025)
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38874 RFA No. 1536 of 2023 HC-KAR
(v) Further, the respondent's contention that the plaintiff's remedy is confined to damages alone is disputed. It is submitted that the settled legal position is that even in employment disputes, where termination is stigmatic or arbitrary, the employee may seek declaratory and injunctive reliefs, apart from damages.
8. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel Sri Dhyan Chinnappa appearing for respondents 1 to 4 submits that,
(i) While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court must undertake a meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole, and not merely isolate portions of the pleadings. When so read, the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs are in substance for reinstatement in service, which is impermissible in law.
(ii) Initially, the plaintiff's suit filed on 30.05.2019 was only for declaration that the termination was void, and also contained a claim of damages of Rs. 1 Crore, (Prayer
d). However by way of amendments on 03.01.2023, 07.02.2022, 10.01.2023 and 04.03.2023, the plaintiff
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38874 RFA No. 1536 of 2023 HC-KAR successively added reliefs (bb), (cc), (dd) and (ee) which sought; (a) to declare the prohibition on entering the workplace as bad; (b) To direct reinstatement on the rolls of the company with effect from 24.04.2019; (c) to grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from preventing her from working. However, on 25.01.2023 the plaintiff herself gave up the prayer for damages (Prayer
d). Thus, what survived in the plaint was only reinstatement related reliefs, all of which are consequential to the declaration sought in prayers (a) and
(b).
(iii) The bar under Section 14 (b) of the Act, contracts of personal service are not specifically enforceable. The plaintiffs' reliefs for reinstatement, injunction and continuation in service are nothing but attempts to enforce a contract of personal service. Hence, the entire suit is barred in law and cannot be entertained. It is further submitted that the management cannot be restrained from exercising its discretion regarding
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38874 RFA No. 1536 of 2023 HC-KAR continuation or termination of employees. Reliance is placed on the decisions in (1) Pearlite Liners (supra), reiterating that in a private master-servant relationship, Courts will not grant declaration that the contract of service continues (2) Raj Kumar (supra) following the decision of the Apex Court in Nandganj Sihori (supra) where it was observed that in a private employment, wrongful termination does not entitle reinstatement or declaration of subsistence of service.
9. The settled principle is that in cases of wrongful termination in private employment, the remedy is confined to damages. The employee cannot seek reinstatement or attempt to achieve indirectly through injunction or declaration what is directly barred by law. Since the surviving prayers are wholly aimed at securing reinstatement and continuity in the employment process, the plaint discloses no cause of action maintainable in law. The suit is therefore rightly held to be barred and dismissed by the trial Court. Further, the suit seeking
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38874 RFA No. 1536 of 2023 HC-KAR mere declaration without consequential relief is not maintainable under Section 34 of the Act. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M.P. Mathur and Others vs DTC and Others10 (M.P.Mathur), Vasantha (dead) Through L.R. vs Rajalakshmi alias Rajam (dead) through Legal Representatives11.
10. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and in light of the settled proposition of law, the points that arises for consideration are,
(i) Whether the trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, on the ground that the reliefs sought are barred by law and the plaint discloses no cause of action?
(ii) Whether the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff/appellant, upon a meaningful reading 10 (2006) 13 SCC 706 11 (2024) 5 SCC 282
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38874 RFA No. 1536 of 2023 HC-KAR of the amended plaint, are in substance directed towards enforcing a contract of personal service, thereby attracting the bar under Section 14 (b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?
(iii) Whether the deletion of the claim for damages (Prayer d) by the plaintiff and the survival of only reinstatement-related prayers disentitled the plaintiff from maintaining the suit?
11. All the points are taken up together in order to avoid repetition of facs.
12. A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC where, on the face of its averment, it discloses no cause of action or is barred by law. The Apex Court in the case of Dahiben (supra) has held that the test is a meaningful reading of a plaint as a whole, not a mechanical exercise. In the present case, the plaintiff sought declaratory consequential reliefs challenging her
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38874 RFA No. 1536 of 2023 HC-KAR termination dated 24.04.2019. However, after amendments, the principal reliefs that survive are essentially for reinstatement and injunction. Thus, the main relief sought is declaration of termination as void, with consequential reinstatement and injunction against preventing the plaintiff from working. It is significant that by deleting prayer (d) for damages, the plaintiff abandoned the only relief that could have independently survived in law. The surviving reliefs are all in substance directed towards reinstatement which is barred under Section 14 (b) of the Specific Relief Act. In Pearlite Liners, the Apex Court held that the contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced, save in three exceptional categories public servants under Article 311, workmen under industrial law, or employees of statutory bodies and held at para No. 10 as under :
"10. The question arises as to whether in the background of facts already stated can such reliefs be granted to the plaintiff. Unless there is a term to the contrary in the contract of service, a transfer order is a normal incidence of service. Further it is
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38874 RFA No. 1536 of 2023 HC-KAR to be considered that if the plaintiff does not comply with the transfer order it may ultimately lead to termination of service. Therefore, a declaration that the transfer order is illegal and void in fact amounts to imposing the plaintiff on the defendant inspite of the fact that the plaintiff allegedly does not obey order of her superiors in the Management of the defendant Company. Such a relief cannot be granted. Next relief sought in the plaint is for a declaration that she continues to be in service of the defendant Company. Such a declaration again amounts to enforcing a contract of personal service which is barred under the law. The third relief sought by the plaintiff is a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from holding an enquiry against her. If the management feels that the plaintiff is not complying with its directions it has a right to decide to hold an enquiry against her. The management cannot be restrained from exercising its discretion in this behalf. Ultimately, this relief if granted would indirectly mean that the court is assisting the plaintiff in continuing with her employment with the defendant Company, which is nothing but enforcing a contract of personal service. Thus, none of the reliefs sought in the plaint can be granted to the plaintiff under the law. The question then arises as to whether such a suit should be allowed to continue and go for trial. The answer in
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38874 RFA No. 1536 of 2023 HC-KAR our view is clear, that is, such a suit should be thrown at the threshold. Why should a suit which is bound to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction of a court to grant the reliefs prayed for, to be tried at all? Accordingly, we hold that the trial court was absolutely right in rejecting the plaint and the lower appellate court rightly affirmed the decision of the trial court in this behalf. The High Court was clearly in error in passing the impugned judgment whereby the suit was restored and remanded to the trial court for being decided on merits. The judgment of the High Court is hereby set aside and the judgments of the courts below, that is, the trial court and the lower appellate court are restored. The plaint in the suit stands rejected."
(emphasis supplied)
13. The Apex Court in the case of Nandganj Shiori held at para nos. 9 and 10 as under :
"9. As stated by this Court in Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli v. Lakshmi Narain: (SCC p. 71, para 18) "... a contract of personal service cannot ordinarily be specifically enforced and a court normally would not give a declaration that the contract subsists and the employee, even after having been removed from service can be
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38874 RFA No. 1536 of 2023 HC-KAR deemed to be in service against the will and consent of the employer. This rule, however, is subject to three well recognised exceptions -- (i) where a public servant is sought to be removed from service in contravention of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India; (ii) where a worker is sought to be reinstated on being dismissed under the Industrial Law; and
(iii) where a statutory body acts in breach or violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute."
(emphasis supplied)
10. A contract of employment cannot ordinarily be enforced by or against an employer. The remedy is to sue for damages. (See Section 14 read with Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act; see Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts by Pollock and Mulla, 10th edn., page 983). The grant of specific performance is purely discretionary and must be refused when not warranted by the ends of justice. Such relief can be granted only on sound legal principles. In the absence of any statutory requirement, courts do not ordinarily force an employer to recruit or retain in service an employee not required by the employer. There are, of course, certain exceptions to this rule, such as in the case of a public servant dismissed from service in
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38874 RFA No. 1536 of 2023 HC-KAR contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution; reinstatement of a dismissed worker under the Industrial Law; a statutory body acting in breach of statutory obligations, and the like. (S.R. Tiwari v. District Board, Agra; Executive Committee of U.P. State Warehousing Corporation v. C.K. Tyagi; Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli v. Lakshmi Narain; see Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th edn., Volume 44, paragraphs 405 to 420)."
14. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres held at para no. 10 as under :
"10. In our opinion, the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff were clearly seeking enforcement of a contract of personal service and the civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant such reliefs as held by this Court in the case of Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi. The High Court and the first appellate Court were clearly in error in holding that the civil court had jurisdiction in the matter and the trial Court was right in holding that the civil court had no jurisdiction and rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff."
(emphasis supplied)
15. The Apex Court reiterated that Civil Courts lack jurisdiction to grant reliefs in substance amounting to
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38874 RFA No. 1536 of 2023 HC-KAR continuation of employment. The plaintiff's employment with the respondent is a private contractual engagement and does not fall within the exception. Therefore the reliefs prayed amount to enforcement of a contract of a personal service and are barred. Initially the plaint contained prayer for damages of Rs. 1 Crore, by amendment dated 25.01.2023 the plaintiff deleted this relief. Thus, the surviving reliefs are limited to reinstatement, injunction, and declaration of prohibition as bad. The Apex Court in Nandganj Shiori (supra) has reiterated that a contract of employment cannot ordinarily be enforced by or against an employer. The remedy is to sue for damages. The Apex Court in the case of M.P Mathur (supra) held that a mere declaratory relief without consequential relief maintainable in law cannot be entertained. Once the damages were deleted, no independent relief survives. The decisions relied by the appellant in Vinod Infra Developers and Boyenepally to contend that the partial rejection is impermissible and if one relief is maintainable, the plaint
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38874 RFA No. 1536 of 2023 HC-KAR survives. While the proposition is sound, it has no application here, as the plaintiff herself deleted the prayer for damages. The surviving reliefs all fall foul of Section 14
(b) of the Act. Since none of the prayers are legally maintainable, the bar against partial rejection does not arise. As stated supra, Section 14 (b) specifically states that the contracts which are dependent on personal qualifications of the parties or which are in their nature determinable, cannot be specifically enforced and the settled proposition is that the Civil Courts cannot grant declaratory or injunctive relief, that in substance amount to reinstatement and such contracts cannot be specifically enforced, though wrongful termination may give rise to a claim for damages. The plaintiff deleted the earlier (Prayer
d) claiming damages of Rs 1 Crore. Thus, after amendments the surviving reliefs were confined essentially to reinstatement and injunction related prayers besides reimbursement of legal fees. The surviving reliefs are in all
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38874 RFA No. 1536 of 2023 HC-KAR substance directed reinstatement, which is barred under Section 14 (b) of the Act.
16. For the foregoing reasons, the points framed for consideration are answered accordingly and this Court pass the following :
ORDER
(i) The Regular First Appeal is hereby dismissed.
(ii) (ii) The judgment and decree of
the trial Court stands
confirmed.
Sd/-
_____________________
JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
CKL
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21