Karnataka High Court
Nitin Kansal vs Arcadis Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. on 8 June, 2017
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8345/2016
BETWEEN:
1. NITIN KANSAL
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO.187, ADARSH
PALMRET, I PHASE,
DEVARABEESANAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 103.
2. M/S AECOM INDIA PVT. LTD.,
C-WING, FIRST FLOOR
MITTAL TOWER NO.6,
M.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU-01
REP. BY ITS SENIOR DIRECTOR
HUMAN RESOURCES
MR.PRAVEEN KUMAR GUPTA
... APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. ANURADHA AGNIHOTRI AND
SRI. DEEPAK BHASKAR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
ARCADIS CONSULTING INDIA
PVT., LTD.,
(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS
HYDER CONSULTING
INDIA PVT., LTD.,)
2
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
#135, 4TH FLOOR,
RMZ TITANIUM
OLD AIRPORT ROAD
KODIHALLI
BANGALORE-560 017 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHIVA SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF
SRI K. DIWAKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43, RULE
1(r), R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER
DATED 6.10.2016 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN
O.S.NO.7174/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 9TH ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ISSUING
SUIT SUMMONS AND EMERGENT NOTICE ON I.A.NO.1
FILED U/O 39, RULE 1 & 2 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Smt.Anuradha Agnihotri, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Sri Deepak Bhaskar for appellants and Sri Shiva Srinivas, learned Advocate appearing for respondent.
3
2. Respondent herein is plaintiff in O.S.NO.7174/2016 which suit has been instituted seeking relief of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from recruiting, hiring, employing the employees working or on the notice period of the plaintiff - company; for payment of damages of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff-company for breach of Contract of Employment dated 08.07.2011 due to loss in business due to loss of experienced and efficient business professional along with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. from the date of suit till payment. In aid of the main relief, an Interlocutory application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC came to be filed by plaintiff seeking for ad-interim exparte order against defendants to restrain them from recruiting, hiring, employing the employees working or on the notice period of plaintiff- company. Trial Court after hearing learned Advocate appearing for plaintiff, by order dated 06.10.2016 4 directed defendants-1 and 2 to maintain status quo in the matter of recruiting, hiring, employing the employees working or on the notice period of plaintiff - company until further orders.
3. Defendants, on service of suit summons, have entered appearance on 07.11.2016 and have filed written statement, application - I.A.No.2 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC to vacate the interim order and application - I.A.No.3 under Order 7 Rule 11(a) & (d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. Matter was heard and reserved for orders on 20.11.2016 for being pronounced on 24.11.2016. As could be seen from the order sheet of trial Court appended to the appeal memorandum, learned trial Judge has not passed the order on 24.11.2016 on the ground that he is engaged in an old matter (20 + years case). On 29.11.2016 it has been recorded by the learned Presiding Officer that he has been transferred to Hassan and as such, 5 adjourned the matter to 01.12.2016 on which date, matter came to be adjourned to 10.01.2017 for hearing on I.A.Nos.1 to 3. Thereafter, matter has been adjourned from time to time and on account of application filed under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC having not been disposed of by trial Court, defendants have preferred this appeal.
4. Though learned Advocate appearing for appellants has made an attempt to argue the matter on merits by contending interalia that Presiding Officer having been transferred, incharge Court had not taken up the matter and as such, ad-interim order granted earlier is causing undue hardship to defendants and therefore same has to be vacated. This Court would not examine merits of the contentions raised by learned Advocate appearing for appellants inasmuch as, any observation made by this Court would prejudice the 6 rights of the parties in view of the fact that I.A.Nos.1 to 3 are still pending before trial Court.
5. In that view of the matter, it would suffice if jurisdictional Court is directed to dispose of the applications expeditiously and within a time frame. This direction if issued will also meet the ends of justice.
6. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is hereby disposed of by directing City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru holding concurrent charge to hear and dispose of I.A.Nos.1 to 3 filed in O.S.No.7174/2016 expeditiously, at any rate, on or before 10.07.2017.7
(ii) Either of the parties would be at liberty to move the jurisdictional Court for preponement or advancement of the case in the light of the above direction issued.
(iii) Order dated 03.01.2017 and clarified on 04.01.2017 in this appeal shall be in operation till I.A.Nos.1 to 3 are disposed of by the trial Court or till 10.07.2017 whichever is earlier.
(iv) All pending applications stand consigned to records.
SD/-
JUDGE *sp