Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: Chamber Summons No. 486/2020 ..1.. In S.C. Suit No.3041/2019
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY.
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 486 OF 2020
IN
S.C. SUIT NO. 3041 OF 2019
Piyush L. Bhatt,
S/o Labhshankar Bhatt,
Aged : 42 Years,
Residing At : 1103, B Wing,
J. P. Decks, Gen. A. K. Vaidya Marg,
Malad (East), Mumbai 400 097. ...Plaintiff.
Versus
1. Trent Hypermarket Private Limited,
A Private Limited Company,
Registered under the provisions of the
Companies Act, 1956,
Having its Registered Office At :
Taj Building, 2nd Floor,
210 Dr. D. N. Road, Fort,
Mumbai 400 001.
2. Seema Modi
Chairman, Internal Complaints Committee,
Trent Hypermarket Private Limited,
Having her office at :
THPL, Commercial Tower – 2,
Kohinoor City, Kurla West,
Mumbai 400 070.
3. Samir Pradhan
Member, Internal Complaints Committee,
Trent Hypermarket Private Limited,
Having her office at :
THPL, Commercial Tower – 2,
-- 1 of 6 --
Chamber Summons No. 486/2020 ..2.. In S.C. Suit No.3041/2019
Kohinoor City, Kurla West,
Mumbai 400 070.
4. Jayantee Bangera
Member, Internal Complaints Committee,
Trent Hypermarket Private Limited,
Having her office at :
THPL, Commercial Tower – 2,
Kohinoor City, Kurla West,
Mumbai 400 070.
5. Tripti Sharma
W/o Mr. Vissth Sharma,
Residing At : A004,
Vishnu Darshan Building,
Shivaji Path, Ganesh Nagar,
Dombivali (West), Mumbai 421 202.
And Residing At :
605, Sai Prasad Arcade, Sector 7,
Kamothe, Navi Mumbai 410 206. ...Defendants.
Appearance :
Mr. Aagam J. Doshi, Advocate for Plaintiff.
Mr. Mainkar, Advocate for defendants No. 1 to 4.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI AJIT N. MARE (C.R.No.3)
DATE : 11TH JANUARY, 2021.
ORAL ORDER
Perused. Heard.
2. By this chamber summons the plaintiff has sought addition
of one more defendant on the ground that inadvertently said proposed
defendant was left out.
-- 2 of 6 --
Chamber Summons No. 486/2020 ..3.. In S.C. Suit No.3041/2019
3. It is the plaintiff’s contention that, the proposed defendant
is one of the members of internal complaints committee, who has
recorded adverse findings against him in a complaint filed under the
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition
and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred as, “The Act of 2013”).
Though the plaintiff has added the Chairman and other two members of
said committee, the proposed defendant was inadvertently left out.
Addition of defendant will not change or alter the cause of action or the
nature of the suit and will not cause prejudice to the existing
defendants.
4. Defendants have not filed reply. However, they have
chosen to argue orally.
5. Advocate for the plaintiff submitted that, the proposed
defendant is inadvertently left out and is necessary party to the suit,
since the plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that, the internal complaints
committee did not provide proper opportunity and did not conduct fair
proceedings. A relief is sought to declare the recommendation of ICC as
null, bad in law and so the proposed defendant is a necessary party.
6. Advocate for defendant No. 1 to 4 submitted that, the
Chamber Summons is filed only when defendants No. 1 to 4 pointed out
the defect in their reply to the plaintiff’s notice of motion. This reveals
negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff cannot add
proposed defendant as a party to suit to take away the defense raised by
defendants No. 1 to 4 and so chamber summons cannot be allowed.
-- 3 of 6 --
Chamber Summons No. 486/2020 ..4.. In S.C. Suit No.3041/2019
7. Advocate for defendant No. 5 submitted that, the proposed
defendant as well as existing defendants No. 2 to 4 are not at all
necessary parties as they have not terminated the plaintiff but have only
made a recommendation on the basis of which defendant No. 1 has
ordered termination of the plaintiff.
8. It is undisputed that, by virtue of powers under order 1
Rule 10 of CPC the Court can add or delete any party to the suit at any
stage. A necessary party is a party in whose absence an effective decree
cannot be passed. In this case, the plaintiff has leveled allegations
against the working of ICC and has also sought a declaration that the
recommendation by the ICC is null and bad in law. Relief is also sought
to set aside the recommendation by ICC. Considering the relief sought
and the allegations against the working of ICC, ICC including its
members is definitely a necessary party to the suit. The ICC has
independent existence in view of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act
of 2013 and is not a part of defendant No. 1 employer. Thus, in the
facts and circumstances of this case, the proposed defendant is also a
necessary party.
9. Though the plaintiff admits that, the chamber summons is
taken out after the defect is pointed out by defendants No. 1 to 4, that
itself cannot be a ground to deny the addition of necessary party to the
suit.
10. In this view of the matter, I hold that, the Chamber
Summons needs to be allowed. Hence, following order:
-- 4 of 6 --
Chamber Summons No. 486/2020 ..5.. In S.C. Suit No.3041/2019
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No. 486/2020 is allowed
and made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a),
(b) and (c).
2. The plaintiff shall carry out the amendment
within three weeks from today and shall submit
the amended copy of plaint and notice of motion
to the Court.
3. Costs in cause.
(AJIT N. MARE)
Judge,
Date : 11.01.2021 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai.
Dictated On : 11.01.2021
Transcribed on : 11.01.2021
HHJ Signed on : 12.01.2021
-- 5 of 6 --
Chamber Summons No. 486/2020 ..6.. In S.C. Suit No.3041/2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE TIME STENOGRAPHER NAME
12.01.2021 1.32 p.m. Mahendrasing D. Patil
(Stenographer (GradeI)
Name of the Judge H.H.J. SHRI. AJIT. N. MARE
(Court Room No.3)
Date of pronouncement of
Order
11.01.2021
Order signed by P. O. on 12.01.2021
Order uploaded on 12.01.2021
-- 6 of 6 --