Karnataka High Court
Uber India Systems Private Limited vs Out Driver'S Union on 24 April, 2017
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
M.F.A.No.1777/2017 (CPC-SJ)
BETWEEN:
1. Uber India Systems Private Limited,
A Company Incorporated under the
Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956,
Having its Registered office at:
Regus Business Centre Private Limited,
Level 13, Platinum Techno Park,
Plot No.17/18, Sector 30a,
Vashi Navi Mumbai,
Maharashtra.
Represented by its authorised signatory,
Mr. Bhavik Rathod.
2. Uber India Technology Private Limited,
A Company Incorporated under the
Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956,
Having its Registered office at:
E-15, Main Market,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110016.
Represented by its authorised signatory,
Mr. Bhavik Rathod.
The appellant Nos.1 and 2 are also at:
1668A, RJP Towers, 27th Main Rd Sector 2,
PWD Quarters, HSR Layout,
Bengaluru - 560 102.
G.R. Towers, No.36/3, No.1245,
2nd Sector, HSR Layout,
2
Somasundara Palya,
Bengaluru - 560 102.
3. Uber BV
A Company incorporated under the
Laws of Netherland,
Having its Registered office at:
Vijzelstraat 68,
Amsterdam 1017, HI
The Netherlands. ... Appellants
(By Smt.Anupama Hebbar Advocate for Krystone Pertnus)
AND:
1. OUT Driver's Union,
Having its Address at,
#54, 1st Cross, 1st Floor,
Kpn New Extn,
Bengaluru - 560 002.
Represented through its President
Mr. Tanveer Pasha.
2. Tanveer Pasha,
Aged Major,
Son of: Not known to the Appellant,
Having his address at,
#54, 1st Cross, 1st Floor,
Kpn New Extn,
Bengaluru - 560 002.
3. Ashok Kumar,
(Unknown respondent) ... Respondents
(By Smt.Rakshitha D.J, Advocate for respondent No.2)
This MFA is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the CPC,
against the order dated 15.02.2017 passed on I.A. Nos.2, 3
and 4 in O.S. No.1137/2017 on the file of the Principal City
Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, granting Interim order of
3
injunction on I.A. Nos.2, 3 and 4 filed under Order 39 Rule 1
and 2 of CPC.
This MFA is coming on for Orders this day, the court
made the following:
JUDGEMENT
This is a plaintiffs' appeal directed against the order dated 15.02.2017 passed in O.S.No.1137/2017 whereunder trial court while considering the prayer for grant of temporary injunction sought for by the plaintiffs on I.A.Nos.2, 3 and 4 has been allowed in part and has restrained the defendants or anybody on their behalf from hampering, obstructing and interfering in the business of the plaintiffs within the 500 meters circumference from the office of the plaintiffs.
2. The grievances of the plaintiff in this appeal is though the temporary injunction was sought for to restrain the defendants from in any manner whatsoever hampering, obstructing, interfering in the legitimate business of the appellants (including but not limited to 4 stopping/blocking the cars of the driver-partners of the plaintiffs, removing/confiscating the devises installed in those cars and in this regard causing any commotion or violence, inciting and exiting others against the appellants), trial court has restricted the prayer to the limited extent of 500 meters only, this is causing great hardship to the plaintiffs from conducting their business. Along with present appeal, an interlocutory application I.A. No.2/2017 has also been filed. The prayer sought in I.A.No.2/2017 filed in the present appeal reads as under:
"For the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit, the appellants most humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an interim order of injunction, pending disposal of this appeal, restraining the respondents(or anyone though them, including their representatives, followers, persons under instructions) from in any manner whatsoever hampering, obstructing, interfering in the legitimate business of the appellants (including but not 5 limited to stopping/blocking the cars of the driver-partners of the plaintiffs, removing/confiscating the devises installed in those cars and in this regard, causing any commotion or violence, inciting and exiting others against the appellants; In the light of the urgency pleaded, the appellants most humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an ad-interim exparte order in terms of the prayer above, prior to issuance of notice to the respondents )."
At the time of issuing the notice on this appeal, this court had granted interim order dated 27.02.2017 which is in force and is vague till date and same reads as under :
Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants.
Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the order passed by the Delhi High Court in CS(O.S).No.64/2017 dated 13.02.2017 and the order passed by the Hyderabad District Court in O.S.No.20/2017 dated 6 06.01.2017, granting injunction as prayed for in favour of the present appellants.
Issue emergent notice to the
respondents.
In the meanwhile, interim order as
prayed for is granted for a period of eight weeks.
3. It is not in dispute that I.A.Nos.2, 3 and 4 of 2017 filed by the plaintiffs before the trial court is yet to be disposed of. It is also on record that plaintiffs were granted an order of temporary injunction partly by the trial court dated 15.02.2017 as already noticed hereinabove and this Court had granted interim order of injunction which had been prayed for appellants/plaintiffs on 27.02.2017. The exparte order of temporary injunction granted by the trial court is required to be disposed of by vacating, confirming, modifying or varying the said order as indicated under 7 Order 39 Rule 3A of CPC within 30 days and said exercise has to be undertaken by the trial Court itself.
4. It is the grievance of the respondents in the present appeal namely respondent No.2 that plaintiffs have wantedly or intentionally described defendant No.1 with incorrect description and are ensuring that defendant No.1 could not be served with the suit summons as well as notices on I.A. and thereby attempting to enjoy the exparte order of temporary injunction to the deterrent of respondents.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellants submit that appellants would take immediate steps to array proper party namely to implead "Ola Taxi for Sure Uber, driver and owners Union" as party to the pending suit namely O.S.1137/2017. Said submission is placed on record. In view of the said submission made and also in view of contention raised by the respondent No.2 before this court on account of pendency of the present appeal, they are not able to take steps before 8 the trial court either for vacating the exparte order of temporary injunction and/or dissolving the said order of temporary injunction already granted. Learned counsel for respondents has sought liberty being reserved to respondents for such steps being taken.
6. Submissions of the learned Advocates noted hereinabove is placed on record. Trial court has yet to decide I.A.Nos.2, 3 and 4 which is pending before it and as such by placing submissions of learned Advocates on record it is observed that trial court would make endeavor to dispose of said applications within 30 days from next date of hearing and in the meanwhile 2nd defendant would also be at liberty to file its written statement, statement of objections to the interlocutory applications-I.A.Nos.2, 3 and 4 filed by plaintiffs. Liberty is also reserved to the plaintiffs to implead necessary and proper parties to the proceedings and in the event of such application being made trial court shall proceed to adjudicate the said application on 9 merits and in accordance with law expeditiously by keeping in mind observations made herein above and it is needless to state that ensuing summer vacation period would stand excluded from the purview of time fixed hereinabove..
7. In view of order of temporary injunction has been granted by this Court on 27.02.2017, same shall be continued till the disposal of IA Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and it is made clear that no opinion is expressed with regard to the merits or rival claims of the parties.
8. Trial court shall dispose of the applications as observed herein keeping in mind the Karnataka (Case Flow Management in Subordinate Courts Rules, 2005). Accordingly appeal stands disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE JS/MH