KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs KALYANI TECH PARK PRIVATE LIMITED

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 10291

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 4696 OF 2025 (GM-CON)
BETWEEN:
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 27, BKC, C27, G BLOCK, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI 400 051.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND SENIOR MANAGER (LEGAL)
MR RATNAVEER SINGH.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRADEEP NAYAK.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KALYANI TECH PARK PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT Digit ally signed by NO. 165/2, KRISHNARAJU LAYOUT, CHETAN B C DORAISANPALYA, BANGALORE 560 076.
Location:
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED HIGH COURT REPRESENTATIVE OF MR. A MOHAN RAJU, DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O A ANANTHAR RAJU.
2. STOCK HOLDING DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE AT: SHCIL HOUSE, PLOT NO. P-51, T.T.C. INDUSTRIAL AREA, MIDC, MAHAPE, NAVI MUMBAI 470 710.
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
3. STOCK HOLDING CORPORATION OF INDIAN LIMITED 301, CENTRE POINT, DR BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR ROAD, PAREL, MUMBAI – 400 012.
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
…RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.12.2024 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH) ALLOWING THE I.A (UNNUMBERED) FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO-3 UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CADRE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

Petitioner Advocates:PRADEEP NAYAK ,Respondent Advocate:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s order dated 21.12.2024 in C.C.No.63/2021 whereby Opposite Party No.2 has been disarrayed in light of Apex Court decision in J.J.LAL PVT LTD vs. M.R.MURALI, AIR 2002 SC 1061 which reiterates the long standing legal position vide RAZIA BEGUM vs. SAHEBZADI ANWAR BEGUM, AIR 1958 SC 886. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the application was filed only for deletion of Opposite Party No.3 whereas, the Tribunal suo moto has disarrayed Opposite Party No.2 which is impermissible.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the Petition Papers, we do not subscribe to the argument advanced at the Bar that in the absence of an application, a person who is a party eo nomine cannot be disarrayed when Court/Tribunal after examining the material on record forms a considered opinion that he is neither necessary nor proper party in the light of RAZIA BEGUM supra. For that, there need not be a formal separate application as a precondition for undertaking such exercise.

3. The Cause Title ordinarily belongs to the dominant litis and thereafter to the court. The respondent normally cannot raise objection to disarray certain person from the Cause Title in the absence of demonstrable prejudice likely to happen by such disarraignment. That has not been established before us, even prima facie. In the above circumstances, petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be and accordingly rejected.

However, it is open to the petitioner to take up the contention as to proper & necessary party, if at all it is admissible based upon the pleadings and substance of lis.

Registry to send a copy of this order to the respondent by Speed Post.

JUDGE

Click Here to Read the rest of this document