Ms. Gorla Rohini, C.J.:--

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act, 1966, challenging the order dated 02.09.2013, passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A No 10913/2011 in CS(OS) No 993/2011.

2. The defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 are the appellants before us.

3. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 herein filed the Suit for recovery of Rs. 43,29,040/- from the defendant No. 1 company. The defendant Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are stated to be the Chairman, Managing Director, and Directors respectively of the defendant No. 1 company.

4. The plaintiff claims that he was appointed as Sales Executive in the Defendant No. 1 company on 18.06.1998 on a monthly salary of Rs. 6,000/-. It was alleged that he suffered throat cancer on account of the harassment caused by the defendants and that he was not allowed by the defendants to discharge his duties from 14.04.2001 onwards. It was also alleged that in spite of the legal notice got issued under Sections 433 and 434 of Companies Act, the defendants failed to respond and therefore he filed a petition under Section439 of the Companies Act for winding up of the defendant No. 1 company. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff was paid Rs. 45,410/- and therefore, the Company petition was dismissed as withdrawn recording the payment that was already made and granting liberty to the plaintiff to file appropriate civil proceedings in respect of the balance claim.

5. Thereupon, the plaintiff came up with CS(OS) No. 993/2011 (out of which the present appeal arises) claiming that a sum of Rs. 43,29,040/- as detailed in Para 14 of the plaint, is still due from the defendant No. 1 company and accordingly seeking a decree against the defendants for recovery of the said amount along with interest of 24% per annum.

6. The defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 (the appellants herein) filed I.A.No. 10913/2011 under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with a prayer to reject the plaint against them and to strike out their names from the array of the defendants in the suit contending inter alia that the plaintiff’s claim is directed only against the defendant No. 1 and the plaint allegations are made only against the defendant Nos. 1 and 3. It was contended that the defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 have no privity to any of the claims made by the plaintiff which are inter se the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 company and therefore they are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit.

7. The said application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the order under appeal dated 02.09.2013. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant No. 2, 4 and 5.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen from the material available on record, the defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5/the appellants herein claim to have resigned as Directors of the defendant No. 1 company on 03.03.2003. It is contended by them in their application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, 1908 that they are merely the nominee non-whole time directors on the board of the defendant No. 1 company on behalf of a company named Ishikawa Gaskets Company Ltd, Tokyo which entered into a joint venture agreement with the defendant No. 1 company on 17.11.1998. However, the said agreement was terminated and in pursuance thereof the defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 had resigned from the defendant No. 1 company w.e.f 03.03.2003. It is claimed that even during their tenure as Directors of the defendant No. 1 company, they had absolutely no role to play in the affairs of the company and that the company was being managed by the defendant No. 3-Managing Director alone. Thus, according to them no cause of action concerning the defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 was established and therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected so far as defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 are concerned.

9. The said application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding that whether the plaintiff would be able to succeed finally in getting any compensation from the individual d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document