Karnataka High Court
Prof Pankaj Chandra vs Sri K Nagaraj on 16 August, 2017
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V. Nagarathna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF AUGUST, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
W.P.Nos.28957-28958 OF 2014 (GM-CPC)
Between:
1. PROF PANKAJ CHANDRA
THE DIRECTOR,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 076,
REPRESENTED BY PROF.DEVANATH TIRUPATI,
THE DIRECTOR-IN-CHARGE OF
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT
BANGALORE.
2. SHIVAKUMAR VENKATESWARAN,
CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 076.
(Petitioner No.2 is Deleted as per Court Order
Dated 23.6.2014)
... PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI : K KASTURI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SMT. K SUBHA ANANTHI-ADV.)
2
AND:
1. SRI K NAGARAJ
S/O.LATE K.KRISHNARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
R/AT NO.160/3, 12TH 'A' CROSS,
R.A MAIN ROAD,
EJIPURA, VIVEKNAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560 047.
2. SHIVAKUMAR VENKATESWARAN,
CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 076.
(Respt. No,.2 is Impleaded vide Court order
Dated 23.6.2014)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI : K NAGARAJ, PARTY-IN-PERSON)PRESENT)
THESE WPs ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE,
C.C.H.NO.18,BANGALORE, IN O.S.NO.8830/2012; QUASH THE
ORDERS DTD.30.11.2013 AND 1.4.2014, VIDE ANNEXS-H & M
PASSED BY THE LEARNED CITY CIVIL JUDGE, C.C.H.NO.18,
BANGALORE, IN O.S.NO.8830/2012.
These petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B'
Group, this day, the Court made the following:
3
ORDER
Though these writ petitions are listed for preliminary hearing in 'B' Group, with the consent of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.1, who has appeared as party in person, it is heard finally.
2. Petitioner herein is working as a Director of Indian Institute of Management, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru. He has been arrayed as defendant No.1 before the trial court in O.S.No.8830/2012, not representing the Institute, but in his personal capacity. Similarly, defendant No.2 in the suit is discharging his duties as Chief Human Resource Officer in the said Institute. He has been arrayed as defendant No.2 in his personal capacity. The suit has been filed by respondent No.1 herein seeking damages. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed by the petitioner herein under Order I Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking his deletion as defendant 4 No.1 in the suit. By the impugned order dated 30.11.2013, the said application has been rejected. Being aggrieved, this writ petition has been preferred.
3. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.1, who has appeared as party
-in- person.
4. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn my attention to the fact that, the relief has been sought against the Institution and not against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in their personal capacity. They may be discharging their duties as Director and Chief Human Resource Officer of the Institute respectively. But, the cause of action of respondent No.1 herein is to seek damages as against the Institute. Therefore, the Institute ought to have been arrayed as defendant in the suit and not the petitioner and defendant No.2 in their personal capacity. He further brought to my attention the fact that, 2nd defendant has let in his evidence 5 in that suit as Chief Human Resource Officer, which is on behalf of the Institute and not in his personal capacity. Therefore, the petitioner herein was not necessary to be arrayed as defendant No.1 in his personal capacity in the suit. He contended that, if at all, the plaintiff had any relief to be sought, it was against the Institute and not the defendants in their individual capacity. He submitted that the trial court was not right in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner herein seeking deletion of his name from the array of parties and that the impugned order may be quashed.
4. Respondent No.1 has submitted that he has sought for the relief of damages against the Institute. But his counsel has arrayed the defendants in their personal capacity. He further submitted that defendant No.2 has now let in his evidence and the same may be construed as the evidence of the Institute.
6
5. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.1 as party-in-person, it is noted that the claim of the respondent No.1 herein for damages is against the Indian Institute of Management, as a body corporate and as an Institute and not against defendants 1 and 2 in their personal capacity. The claim is made against the Institute and that the defendants have only acted in their official capacity for and on behalf of the Institute. Therefore, the respondent ought to have arrayed the Institute as defendant in the suit. Be that as it may. When the petitioner herein sought for his deletion, it was because he was arrayed in his personal capacity and not as representing the Institute. Petitioner's apprehension is that any decree to be passed would be against him in his personal capacity and not against the Institute, therefore he has sought for his deletion.
6. Having regard to the fact that the relief sought is against the Institute and not personally against the 7 defendants, the trial Court ought to have deleted defendant No.1, who was arrayed by name and in his individual capacity. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and defendant No.1 is deleted from the array of parties.
However, there can be no apprehension in the mind of the respondent, as it shall be construed the defendant No.2, is participating in the suit for and on behalf of the Indian Institute of Management in the capacity of Chief Human Resource Officer and not in his individual capacity. Therefore, any decree to be passed shall be construed to be a decree against the Institute and not personally against defendant No.2. In the circumstances, the Writ Petitions are allowed and accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE psg*