Back
2002 Supreme(Bom) 312
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
S.A. Bobde, J.
P.M.A. Hakeem, Chairman, Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation others .... Plaintiffs.
Versus
U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation
Limited others.... Defendants.
And
Co-operative Textiles Mills Ltd. Staff Association.... Intervener.
Chamber Summons No. 326 of 2000 in Suit No. 2792 of 2000, decided on 27-3-2002.
Advocates appeared :
Subhash Jha i/b. Law Global, for interveners in support.
Janak Dwarkadas with Zal Andhyarujina with Ms. Alka Patel i/b. Rustomji Ginwala Co., for plaintiffs.
R.V. Govilkar, for defendants.
Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order I, Rule 10 - Impleadment of proper party - Party to suit must disclose interest in subject-matter - Interest have a effect on decree that is to be passed - Presence of party is necessary before an order is passed.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order I, Rule 3 - Joining a suit - Application filed to join suit in capacity of a defendant - To become a defendant it is necessary to establish that his interests were seriously going to be affected if he was not made a party to suit - Or his presence was necessary to reply the questions arising out of the hearing of suit.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order I, Rule 3 - Impleadment - Joining of party as defendant to suit - Direct and substantial interest in subject- matter must be demonstrated - For answering issues arising in suit - For complete and final adjudication of suit. - A party seeking to be impleaded as a party to a suit must demonstrate that it has a direct and substantial interest in the subject-matter of the suit and that such interest would be affected directly by the decree that may be passed in the suit or that its presence as a party to the suit must be necessary for answering the issues arising in the suit. These factors must demonstrably exist before the party applying can be allowed to be impleaded as a party to the suit. These are factors which must be taken into account while considering whether the presence of a party is necessary before an effective order is made or is proper for a complete and final adjudication of the suit.
2. The Federation has about 11 member mills of which one of the mill is at Bulundshar. The applicant who seeks to be impleaded as a defendant is not even one of the member mill of the defendant Association but claims to be a Staff Association of one of the member Mill i.e. the Bulundshar.
3. This Court has passed an injunction on 30th June, 2000 which was confirmed on 3rd December, 2001 in terms of prayer Clauses (B) and (C). The effect of injunction admittedly is to restrain the defendants Federation from disposing of, parting with or encumbering any of its properties.
4. The main ground urged on behalf of the applicant is that they would be entitled to payment under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) from the Bulundshar Mill if the Government of U.P. gives it a loan. According to the applicants/interveners the loan cannot be taken by the Federation and thereafter paid by the federation to the Bulundshar Mill for the VRS because one of the terms of the proposed loan is that the Federation would have to make repayment to the Government from the amount received from the disposal/sale of the two spinning mills including the one situated at Bulundshar.
5. The only evidence on record is Exhibit B-1 addressed by the Dy. Secretary, U.P. Government to the Director, Handloom and Textile Industry. Mr. Govilkar, learned Counsel for the defendants states that the loan has not even been received by the defendants federation till date.
6. Having regard to these circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant Staff Association has no direct or substantial legal interest in the present suit which is filed by the plaintiffs i.e. the Trustees of the MSRTC against the Federation for recovery of a sum of money. The Staff Association or the workers have no direct or substantial legal interest at stake in the suit. Whether the suit is decreed or otherwise it would not directly or substantially affect any of the rights of the applicant Staff Association. I see no substance in the contention that if the Staff Association is not allowed to be impleaded as a party it would disable their employer from repaying the loan which is promised to their federation by the U.P. Government on the ground that one of the terms on which the Government proposed to give loan is the fact that the repayment would take place upon disposal/sale of assets of the employers of the applicant. It seems that the argument is based on the fact that this Court has granted an injunction restraining the defendant Federation from disposing of any of its assets and that the injunction would deter the Government of U.P. from giving a loan to the Federation.
7. Mr. Jha, learned Counsel for the applicant, relied on a judgment of this Court in (State Bank of India v. The Podar Mills Limited and others)1, 1988(2) Bom.C.R. 189, in which this Court held that in a suit between the company and its creditors the workers of the company can be added as necessary and proper parties where the decree in favour of the plaintiffs deprives the workers of some benefits. The situation in the present case is very different. The present application for impleadment is not being made by the workers of a company which is being sued by its creditors. It is made by the workers/staff association of one of the mem
