Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.NAGAPRASANNA
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., By Its Vice President –HR, Sri Nagendra Prasad K.V. – Appellant
Versus
Commercial Bank Retired Employees Association (REGN. NO. 293/01), Represented By Its Secretary V. Vasudevan, S/o G.V. Venkatraman – Respondent
ORDER :
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
The petitioner/Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited which is the defendant in O.S.No.8105 of 2024 is at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 15-02-2025 passed by the XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City allowing I.A.No.1 of 2024 filed under Order I Rule 8 of the CPC , whereby permission is granted to convert the original suit into a representative suit after 21 years of its institution.
2. Heard K.M.Balasubrahmanya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P.S. Ranganathan, learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent No.1.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
The respondents/plaintiffs institute a suit in O.S.No.8105 of 2004 seeking terminal benefits obtaining under the Vysya Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 (‘the Regulations’ for short). The erstwhile Vysya Bank is the present petitioner. 1st plaintiff is Commercial Banks Retired Employees Association(‘Association’ for short) registered under the Tamilnadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 at Chennai. It has instituted the suit claiming that it is voicing individual and collective grievances of pensioners or retirees of the Bank. The 1s
Compliance with procedural requirements under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC is essential for a suit to be treated as a representative action.
Point of law : Appeal suit - There is nothing mandatory that the appellate court should invariably direct publication of notice whenever a decree in a representative suit is challenged. Merely for th....
Duty is cast on the Court to see that interest of those on whose behalf suit is permitted to be instituted is safeguarded.
The Court found that the applicants had common interest and were entitled to get leave for filing the suit.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 8(3) of C.P.C., the applicants must have the same interest as that of the defendants in a representative su....
The requirement of explicit judicial permission is essential for representative suits under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code to ensure binding effect on absent parties.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
