Delhi High Court
A.K.Mitra vs M/S Synthiko Formulations & ... on 23 February, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.425/2001
% 23rd February, 2011
A.K.MITRA ...... Appellant
Through: None.
VERSUS
M/S SYNTHIKO FORMULATIONS & CHEMICALS LTD. & ANR
...... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This matter is on the „Regular Board‟ of this Court since 17.1.2011. Today,
this matter is effective item No.5 on the „Regular Board‟. It is 2.45 P.M. and no
one has chosen to appear for the parties. I have therefore perused the record
and am proceeding to dispose of the appeal.
2. The challenge by means of the present regular first appeal under Section
96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 is to the impugned judgment and decree
dated 20.3.2001 whereby the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of
Rs.1,02,448/- has been dismissed on a preliminary issue framed as under:-
"Whether the suit is without any cause of action as against the
present defendants? OPP"
RFA No. 425/2001 Page 1 of 3
3. The suit was dismissed holding that there was no cause of action against
the defendants/respondents. Suit was basically for recovery of damages for
illegal termination of services.
4. The need for framing of the issue arose because the appellant/plaintiff was
an employee of M/s Synthiko Formulations Ltd and not M/s Synthiko Formulations
and Chemicals Ltd. against whom the suit was filed. Defendant no.2 in the suit
was the director and in any case, a director is not liable for the grievances of an
employee against the employer company.
5. Though, the impugned judgment and decree decides the suit on a
preliminary issue, in reality, the suit has been disposed off under Order 12 Rule 6
CPC on the admitted facts which emerged that the appellant/plaintiff was the
employee of M/s Synthiko Formulations Ltd. and not the defendant no.1 M/s
Synthiko Formulations and Chemicals Ltd.
6. The admitted facts are that the appellant/plaintiff was employed by M/s
Synthiko Formulations Ltd. and against whom originally the suit was filed and
which company was originally sued as defendant no.1 and Sh. M.J.Dadiya was
the director of the company sued as defendant No.2. Surprisingly, however,
during the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was
filed whereby the defendant no.1 M/s Synthiko Formulations Ltd. was sought to
be substituted by M/s Synthiko Formulations and Chemicals Ltd. This application
was allowed and the original defendant no.1 M/s Synthiko Formulations Ltd. was
substituted by M/s Synthiko Formulations and Chemicals Ltd. Admittedly, M/s
Synthiko Chemicals Ltd. is a separate company than the present defendant no.1
M/s Synthiko Formulations and Chemicals Ltd. All the documents which are filed
with the suit show the appellant/plaintiff as the employee of M/s Synthiko
RFA No. 425/2001 Page 2 of 3
Formulations Ltd. and not of Synthiko Formlations and Chemicals Ltd.- the
present defendant no.1.
7. The trial court has therefore by the impugned judgment and decree
dismissed the suit on the ground that the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to
relief from the company Synthiko Formulations and Chemicals Ltd., as the
appellant was the employee of M/s Synthiko Formulations Ltd. and not of the
respondent no.1/defendant no.1 M/s Synthiko Formulations and Chemicals Ltd. I
may note that no case is laid out in the plaint of M/s Synthiko Formulations Ltd.
having been merged with M/s Synthiko Formulations and Chemicals Ltd. If such
a case was laid out in the plaint, it is possible that the suit would have been
maintainable against the M/s Synthiko Formulations and Chemicals Ltd.
assuming that the latter supposedly took over the assets and liabilities of M/s
Synthiko Formulations Ltd. In the entire plaint, reference however is made only
to the defendant no.1/respondent no.1/M/s Synthiko Formulations and Chemicals
Ltd. as the original employer of the appellant, and which admittedly was not the
case as per the appellant/plaintiff own documents.
8. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or perversity with the
impugned judgment and decree which calls for interference by this court. The
appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own
costs. Trial court record be sent back.
FEBRUARY 23, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
