A suit for a declaration and mandatory injunction is maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, if consequential relief is sought.

$~5

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 7^th January, 2022

+

C.R.P. 77/2020

ICICI BANK LTD

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Pawanjit Singh Bindra, Sr.

Advocate & Mr. Abhinav Mukhi,

Advocate.

versus

SH VINOD GUPTA & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Ms. Vandana Sharma & Mr. Samudra

Sain, Advocates.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present petition challenges the impugned order dated 11^th

September, 2020 in C.S. No. 8627/2016 [old no. C.S. (OS) No. 2109/2011]

titled Sh. Vinod Gupta v. ICICI Bank Limited & Ors. passed by the ld.

ADJ-06 (SE) Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter “Trial Court”) vide

which application filed by the Petitioner/Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant

Bank”) under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected. The main ground

urged under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is that a simpliciter suit praying for

declaration and mandatory injunction without praying for consequential

relief is not maintainable in view of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act,

1963 (hereinafter “Act”).

3. The Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed the suit for

declaration and mandatory injunction seeking declaration to the following

effect:

2022:DHC:125

circumstances of the case.”

4. The Plaintiff had worked in the Defendant Bank for a period of 29

years and it is alleged by the Defendant Bank that during the said period he

indulged in 178 dubious and unauthorised transactions which led to a

disciplinary enquiry being held against him as a result of which he was

terminated. The said termination was assailed by the Plaintiff before the

Trial Court on the ground that proper opportunity to present his case was not

given to him and the enquiry officer was biased leading to the suit being

filed seeking declaration of the enquiry proceedings and the consequential

termination as bad in law.

5. Ld. Sr. Counsel, Mr. Pawanjit Singh Bindra, appearing for the

Defendant Bank places reliance upon Section 34 of the Act and the reliefs

prayed to submit that the suit filed by the Plaintiff is not maintainable.

According to him, even if the Plaintiff would not have been terminated from

2022:DHC:125

the Defendant Bank, he would have superannuated by now. Since no

monetary compensation or backwages have been sought in the relief part of

the plaint, the suit is not maintainable. He relies on the following judgments

to support his case:

i.

State of M.P. v. Mangilal Sharma AIR 1998 SC 743.

ii.

Smarjit Datta v. PMT Tools Automatic Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2001(3)

BOMLR 836.

6. Mr. Bindra further submits that the Plaintiff had, in fact, admitted to

the fact that he had carried out these unauthorised transactions and had

transferred amounts from customers’ account to his own account. He had

even tendered an apology. Though, no written complaint was made by any

customer, considering that he is a bank employee, the termination was

perfectly justified.

7. On the other hand, ld. Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff submits that

the suit is currently at the stage of evidence before the Trial Court and the

evidence ought to be allowed to be continued to be recorded. At this stage,

there is no cause for rejection of the plaint.

8. A perusal of the plaint in the present case shows that the same was

instituted in 2011 before the Original Side of this Court bearing number C.S.

(OS) 2109/2011. Vide order dated 31^st July, 2015, the following issues were

framed in the suit:

2022:DHC:125

4. Relief.”

9. A bare perusal of the above issues shows that no issue relating to the

maintainability of the suit under Section 34 of the Act was framed at that

stage. Thereafter, the suit was transferred to the Trial Court on 11^th

December 2015 due to increase in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High

Court. The suit then proceede