M.L. Mehta, J.

I.A. No. 3607/2012 (under Order I Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 16 of CPC)

1. By this Order, I shall dispose of the application filed by defendant no. 7 under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC seeking deletion of the names of defendants no. 1 to 4 and 6, as well as under Order VI Rule 16 for striking off pleadings made against these defendants. Before proceeding on the merits of this application, it is pertinent to give a brief description of the parties in this suit.

2. The plaintiff, Smt. Binu Anand Khanna, was an erstwhile employee of defendant no. 7, The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., a company under the Tata Group of Companies, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office in Bombay. Defendant no. 7 is stated to be engaged in the business of running a chain of reputed hotels under the name and style of ‘Taj’. Defendant no. 8, The Taj Trade and Transport Co. Ltd., is stated to be a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant no. 7. Defendant no. 8 is also stated to own and operate a reputed chain of exclusive variety stores known as ‘Khazana’. Defendants no. 1 to 6 are stated to be the officers of defendants no. 7 and 8. For the sake of brevity, a table of the memo of parties is reproduced as hereunder.

Defendant No.	Name	Description/Designation
Defendant no. 1	Sh. Ratan Tata	Chairman of Tata Group
Defendant no. 2	Sh R.K. Krishna Kumar	Managing Director of Defendants no. 7
Defendant no. 3	Sh. S. Ramakrishnan	Deputy Managing Director of D7
Defendant no. 4	Sh. A.P. Goel	Vice President, Finance of Defendant no. 7
Defendant no. 5	Smt. Sabina Saxena	CEO of Defendant no. 7
Defendant no. 6	Smt. Namita Jain	Deputy General Manager of Defendant no. 8
Defendant no. 7	The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd.
Defendant no. 8	The Taj Trade and Transport Co. Ltd.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that her employment with Defendant nos. 7 and 8 was wrongfully and arbitrarily terminated. She claims to have joined the service of Defendant no. 7 on October 23, 1980, as a receptionist on a temporary basis. Thereafter, vide letter dated July 14, 1981, she was confirmed and was designated as Confidential Secretary in the then Managing Director’s office at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi. She claims that she was not only involved with the offices of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Managing Director, but was also associated with the exclusive stores known as ‘Khazana’. The Collection?, which are owned and operated by defendant no. 8. And that in or around July-August, 1997, the defendant no. 7 company was going through a tumultuous time, on account of wide ranging changes in the management structure brought about by the takeover of the reins by defendant no. 1, who allegedly wanted to have his own set of officers in charge of the affairs of defendants no. 7 and 8.

4. The plaintiff submits that defendants no. 1 to 3 hatched a conspiracy to get rid of various officers of the defendants no. 7 and 8, and that a number of officers of the said two companies were subjected to numerous audits and investigations and thereby harassed. She submits that the appointments of defendants no. 5 and 6 were done in a surreptitious manner with a view to oust her role and standing in the defendants? organization. And that defendant no. 1 to 6 were acting in concert with each other and wanted to force the plaintiff to either resign or take up duties which would not interfere with their style of working. And that her services were terminated illegally and that all the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and damages to the plaintiff.

5. The pith and substance of the application filed by defendant no. 7 is as follows. The applicant/defendant submits that names of defendants no. 1 to 4 and 6 ought to be deleted from the array of parties on t