Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: :1: NM-565-18 Suit.4511-11
CNR NO. MHCC010021452018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT GREATER MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.565 OF 2018
IN
S.C. SUIT NO.4511 OF 2011
Dilip V. chawla ] .. Applicant.
In the matter of:
Nisha P. Chawla ] .. Plaintiff.
Versus
1. Vashu H. Chawla ]
2. Sapna Bali Chawla, ]
3. Navin Prakash Chawla, ]
4. Prakash Hariram Chawla, ] .. Defendants.
CORAM: HER HONOUR JUDGE
BHARTI KALE
(C.R. No. 4).
DATE: 16th August, 2018.
Applicant/Intervenor in person present.
Adv. Vivek Sharma for plaintiff.
Adv. for defendants absent.
ORDER
The applicant intervenor has take out this notice of motion
for permission to intervene in the suit.
2. The applicant has submitted that in the present suit the
Court Receiver was appointed on 05/01/2012 in respect of the suit firm
wherein the directions were given to employ all the existing employees
-- 1 of 6 --
:2: NM-565-18 Suit.4511-11
as on date. The applicant has submitted that when he was manager,
the Court Receiver took possession of the suit firm and no recordings
were made about the employees. He has stated that he was on leave
and therefore his name was not reflected. He approached the Court
Receiver, but Court Receiver refused to accept the applicant as
employee. The Court Receiver thereafter filed report in the court
seeking directions in respect of the applicant’s employment and salary
of the applicant. It is stated that the defendant No.1 has admitted that
he is employee and the Court Receiver kept the matter in abeyance and
directed the applicant to approach the appropriate authority and court
regarding his status. It is stated that the Court Receiver is obliged to
report to the court about the veracity of his claim regarding
employment. Hence, applicant has taken out this notice of motion to
allow him to intervene in the matter.
3. The plaintiff has filed the reply contending that the
applicant is not entitled to be impleaded in the suit and the applicant
had already been directed by the Court Receiver to approach the
competent court. This court has also on 09/12/2015 held that in
present suit court cannot decide whether the applicant is an employee.
It is submitted that the applicant is not employee and motion is liable to
be dismissed.
4. Heard the applicant in person and Advocate for the
plaintiff.
5. Following points arise for my determination and I have
recorded my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:
-- 2 of 6 --
:3: NM-565-18 Suit.4511-11
POINTS FINDINGS
(1) Whether the applicant is necessary
party to the suit for being impleaded
as party defendant ? : No
(2) What order ? : As per final order.
REASONS
Point No.1 :
6. The present suit is filed for dissolution of partnership firm
and the accounts. The applicant is admittedly not partner in the said
firm. He has submitted that he is employee of the firm and as per the
order dated 05/01/2012 his rights as an employee are to be considered
by the Court Receiver. But the Court Receiver refused to decide
whether the applicant is an employee or not. Therefore, the applicant
needs to intervene in the suit.
7. In the present case the Court Receiver has not found the
applicant as employee and it has informed the applicant to approach
the proper forum for agitating his rights. The applicant has therefore
filed present notice of motion for intervening in the present suit.
However, I find that the applicant is not proper and necessary party for
deciding dispute in present suit. The plaintiff is dominous litus and he
has to decide who will be the party to the suit. This court cannot in a
suit for dissolution of partnership firm consider whether the applicant is
an employee of the firm or not. The applicant needs to take steps as
per the law. Therefore, as I find that the applicant is not a necessary
-- 3 of 6 --
:4: NM-565-18 Suit.4511-11
party, I answer Point No.1 in negative and proceed to pass the
following order.
ORDER
i) The Notice of Motion No.565 of 2018 is dismissed.
ii) Accordingly notice of motion is disposed of.
(BHARTI KALE )
Judge
City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay.
Date : 16/08/2018
Dictated on: 16/08/2018
Transcribed on: 18/08/2018
Signed on: 21/08/2018
-- 4 of 6 --
:5: NM-565-18 Suit.4511-11
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
21/08/2018 at 5.20 p.m
UPLOADED DATE AND TIME (DASTAGIR B. MULLA)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.
H.H.J. BHARTI KALE (Court
Room No.4)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
16/08/2018
Judgment/Order signed by P.O.on 21/08/2018
Judgment/Order uploaded on 21/08/2018
-- 5 of 6 --
:6: NM-565-18 Suit.4511-11
-- 6 of 6 --