Back
2006 Supreme(Del) 2319
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Honble Judge: Gita Mittal, J.
Mr. B. Rath – Appellants
Vs.
Mr. David Ball and Ors. – Respondent
IA Nos. 66, 67 and 2455/2006 in CS(OS) No. 1256/2005
Decided On: 13.12.2006
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: C. Kumar, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv., Neelima Tripathi, Taru Gupta and Deepesh Aneja, Advs. for defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 3a and Siddharth Yadav, Adv. for defendant No. 4
A plaint discloses a cause of action if it contains facts that, if proven, would entitle the plaintiff to the relief sought.
Headnote:
ORDER 7 RULE 11 CPC - CAUSE OF ACTION - JOINT VENTURE - WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF SERVICE - DAMAGES - NECESSARY AND PROPER PARTY - MAINTAINABILITY OF SUIT - REJECTION OF PLAINT:
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a software engineer and former Vice President of defendant No. 2, UEC SAIL Information Technology Ltd., filed a suit seeking damages of Rs. 1 crore for wrongful termination of his services. The termination letter was issued by defendant No. 1, Mr. David Ball, the then Chief Executive Officer of defendant No. 2. Plaintiff alleged that the termination was illegal and had a debilitating impact on his career. He also arrayed UEC SAIL Information Technology Ltd. (defendant No. 2), the President of USX Engineers & Consultants Inc. (defendant No. 3), the President of UEC Technologies LLC (defendant No. 3(a)), and the Chairman of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (defendant No. 4) as defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action against defendant No. 1, Mr. David Ball, as the plaintiff had made out a case that the termination of his services was illegal and without authority, resulting in loss and damages to him. The court further held that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action against defendants Nos. 3, 3(a), and 4, as there were no allegations against them and no relief was sought against them. Therefore, the court allowed the applications filed by defendants Nos. 3, 3(a), and 4, and dismissed the application filed by defendant No. 1.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action against defendant No. 1, Mr. David Ball? 2. Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action against defendants Nos. 3, 3(a), and 4?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A plaint discloses a cause of action if it contains facts that, if proven, would entitle the plaintiff to the relief sought. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a case that the termination of his services was illegal and without authority, resulting in loss and damages to him. Therefore, the plaint disclosed a cause of action against defendant No. 1. 2. A plaint does not disclose a cause of action against a defendant if there are no allegations against that defendant and no relief is sought against that defendant. The court found that there were no allegations against defendants Nos. 3, 3(a), and 4, and no relief was sought against them. Therefore, the plaint did not disclose a cause of action against these defendants.
Final Decision: The court allowed the applications filed by defendants Nos. 3, 3(a), and 4, and dismissed the application filed by defendant No. 1.
Gita Mittal, J.
1. By this order, I propose to dispose of three applications filed by defendants under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. I.A. No. 66/2006 has been filed on behalf of defendant No. 1; I.A. No. 67/2006 has been filed on behalf of defendant Nos. 3 and 3 (a); and I.A. No. 2455/2006 has been filed by the defendant No. 4. In as much as the applications raise similar questions of law and fact as to whether the plaint discloses any cause of action against these defendants, which is to be decided on perusal of the plaint, these applications are being taken up together.
2. For the purposes of this application, it is necessary to examine the case laid down by the plaintiff in the plaint. The present suit has been filed seeking damages of Rs. 1 crore. The plaintiff contends that he is a software engineer and had been the Vice President - Marketing & Services of the UEC SAIL Information Technology Ltd., defendant No. 2 in this case, from 15th March, 1997 up to the 13th November, 2003. A few months before the termination of his services, the plaintiff was promoted to the post of Sr. Vice President of the defendant No. 2. The plaintiff has contended that in view of his qualifications and his services, he was looking forward to an active career with the defendant No. 2 for the next eight years as he was only 52 years old at the time of issuance of the promotion letter.
3. The suit has been necessitated as, all of a sudden, by a one-line letter dated 13th November, 2003, Mr. David Ball, the defendant No. 1 being the then Chief Executive Officer of the defendant No. 2, even though he had no power or authority to do so, terminated the services of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has alleged irreparable damage to his career and standing in society and has assailed the termination of his services as being illegal and having a debilitating impact on his career in terms of loss of opportunity and reputation.
.4. On this basis, the present suit has been filed seeking damages of Rs. 1 crore for these actions. Apart from Mr. David Ball who has been arrayed as defendant No. 1 and also 1 (a), the plaintiff has arrayed UEC SAIL Information Technology Ltd. as defendant No. 2; the President, USX Engineers & Consultants Inc. as defendant No. 3; the President, UEC Technologies LLC as defendant No. 3(a); and the Chairman of Steel Authority of India Ltd. as defendant No. 4.
5. In the plaint, it is urged that the defendant No. 2 is a joint venture company, incorporated in 1995 under the Companies Act, 1956. It is submitted that a Promoters Agreement dated 10th November, 1994 was entered into between the USX Engineers & Consultants Inc., USA (UEC) and the Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) at Delhi. As a result of this Promoters Agreement dated 10th November, 1994, M/s UEC SAIL Information Technology Ltd. (defendant No. 2 herein) was incorporated. M/s UEC Technologies LLC has become the successor in interest of the USX Engineers & Consultants Inc., USA (defendant No. 3) herein and is arrayed as defendant No. 3 (a) before this Court.
6. It is asserted that in terms of Clause 6.1 of the Promoters Agreement dated 10th November, 1994, M/s USX Engineers & Consultants Inc., the defendant No. 3 was to nominate three directors to the Board of Directors of the defendant No. 3 while the Steel Authority of India Ltd., the defendant No. 4 was required to nominate two directors to the Board.
.7. The plaintiff has further alleged that upon incorporation of the defendant No. 2, as per Clause 5.1.1 of the Promoters Agreement, he was an employee of the Steel Authority of India, the defendant No. 4 who was working as its General Manager in the E-8 grade and that he was originally assigned to the UEC SAIL Information Technology Ltd. as part of the Core Group. Upon incorporation of such joint venture, the plaintiff was one of the senior most personnel originally assigned to the joint venture by SAIL.
.On allegat
