Delhi High Court
Narender Kumar Sehgal vs Tal Ishikawa Ltd. And Ors. on 2 September, 2013
Author: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% I.A. No.10913/2011 in CS(OS) 993/2011
+ Date of Decision: 2nd September, 2013
# NARENDER KUMAR SEHGAL ..... Plaintiff
! Through: Ms. Sapna Sinha, Advocate
versus
$ TAL ISHIKAWA LTD. AND ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Mr. Vaibhav
Mr. Sukant Vikram, Advocate for
Defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5
(applicants).
Ms. Diya Kapur, Ms. Seema and
Ms. Ritika Ahuja, Advocate for
Defendant No.4
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
ORDER
P.K. BHASIN, J:
This order shall dispose off an application under Order VII Rule
11 read with Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure(in short
'C.P.C.') filed on behalf defendant nos.2, 4 and 5 for rejection of the
plaint qua them only or for deleting their names from the array of
parties being neither necessary not proper parties.
2. The plaintiff was employed by M/s Reinz Gaskets Limited as a
Sales Executive on 18th June, 1998 at a monthly salary of Rs.6000/-
plus HRA, conveyance allowance etc. This Company was
manufacturing Gaskets and other rubber products in India. In
November, 1998 one Japanese Company by the name of M/s Ishikawa
Gasket Co. Limited entered into a Joint Venture Contract with the said
Indian Company, whose Managing Director was defendant no.3 Mr.
Navneet Talwar, and as a result of that contract the name of the said
Indian Company with which the plaintiff was employed, came to be
changed to M/s Tal Ishikawa Ltd., which is defendant no.1 in this suit.
Defendant nos. 2, 4 and 5 were nominated by the said Japanese
Company as its nominee Directors on the Board of defendant no.1
Company. Defendant no.2 became its Chairman while defendant no.3
Mr. Navneet Talwar remained its Managing Director.
3. The plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.43,29,040/-
in the year 2011 as an indigent person alleging that while in the
employment of defendant no.1 he had to perform tedious tasks
including excessive talking to the customers for selling the Company's
products he developed throat cancer which disease came to be
detected initially in the August, 2000. It was pleaded by the plaintiff
that though he was entitled to get medical assistance from defendant
no.1 Company but not only he was not rendered any such assistance
but he was denied entry to the factor premises after 14th April,2001
and he was also not paid even his salary and other allowances.
4. The plaintiff claimed the suit amount under various heads as
detailed in para no.14 of the plaint which is re-produced below:
"14. That the plaintiff is not in a position to go any where and all
these problems are due to ACTS OF COMMISSION AND OMISSION of
the company as a whole. The plaintiff has suffered enough and it
appears that his life is also limited due to CANCER. The plaintiff is
making the following genuine claim from the company: -
→Salary Pending September 1999and
October 1999 that is about 9541/- p.m(two month salary.
Rs.19082/-
→Salary Pending form
July 2000 to August 2002 ( 26 months)
Rs.248066/-
→Imprest Money (petty Cash Voucher) amount pending
(Already given to the company inclusive of
Rs. 37952/-
Daily local conveyance, which is fixed by the
Company from the year 1998)
→Medical Treatment expenses at various places from 1999 to
August (Expenses bill already submitted to the company.
Rs.2,75,000/-
Including -- Throat Cancer big operation, (total
laryngectomees) Voice box removal in G.T.B. Hospitals,
Radiotherapy Treatment, and Gall Bladder stone operation
from AIIMS, mental depression (Cyclogist treatment)
→Artificial Electronic Larynx Germany
Rs. 40,000/-
(Simens Company [speech device] Pamphlet enclosed
photocopy of around 744 $ + import & other expenses etc.)
India lauding cost.
→Four years L.T.A. allowance pending since long 1998 that is
about R s . 6 0 0 0 p e r y e a r . ( 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 , 1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 0 , 2 0 0 0 t o
2001,2001-02)
Rs. 24,000/-
→Other expenses from July 2000 to till date like telephone
expenses, Photocopy expenses, Postage expenses, and
Internet expenses, Conveyance expenses and other misc.
expenses etc.
Rs.30,000/-
I 2
→Legal consultation, lees expenses etc. in more than 1
year period (time to time to so many Advocates).
Rs. 35,000/-
- Expenses in Registrar of companies for
Certified copy Photocopy etc. Rs. 6500/-
___________
Rs .7,15,600/-
Salary @ Rs.9541/- for 14 years
i.e. upto the age of 60 years. Rs.16,02,888/-
Mental Shock & harassment of MN
self and to my Family member Rs.15,00,000/-
→I n te r e s t o n a l l t h e ou t s ta n d i n g d u e s @ 2 4 % o n
7 0 9 1 0 0 ( 3 ye a r)
Rs. 51,055/-
_______________________________________________
Total: Rs. 43,29,040/-
_______________________________________________________________________________
(Rs. Forty Three Lacks Twenty Nine Thousand & Rupees
Fourty Only.) "
5. The present application has been filed on behalf of three
Japanese Directors on the Board of defendant no.1 Company through
their Indian attorney for the rejection of the plaint qua them on the
ground that though they had resigned as Directors of defendant no.1
Company in the year 2003 but in any case they cannot be sued merely
as being the Directors of this Company at some point of time. It is
their grievance that they have been impleaded by the plaintiff only to
harass them knowing that they are Japanese people and it will be very
difficult for them to come to India from Japan to defend themselves in
this suit which according to their counsel is absolutely frivolous suit
considering the fact as per the well settled legal position through
various judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court as well as this
Court Directors of a Company are not personally liable for the
payment of employment dues of any employee even if the same are
not paid by the employer Company.
6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants-
defendants that the entire plaint is bereft of necessary averments
which could have prima facie shown that there is any cause of action
for the plaintiff to sue the erstwhile Directors of defendant no.
Company and make them personally liable for his so called
employment dues like salary, medical expenses etc. It was also
contended that though in one para the plaintiff has pleaded that
because of the acts of omission on the part of the Managing Director,
Chairman and other directors he had got the problem of blood
pressure but no specific acts of omission etc. of these persons have
been pleaded and based on a totally vague averment the plaintiff will
not be able to get any relief against the Directors personally.
Therefore, counsel submitted, the plaint deserves to be rejected qua
defendant nos.2, 4 and 5.
7. The plaintiff was provided with the services of a legal aid
counsel nominated by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
He submitted that whether or not the plaintiff will be able to get a
decree for compensation amount on account of mental trauma
caused to him by the acts of commission or omission by the Directors
of the Company is matter which would be examined after trial and the
plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.
8. I am in full agreement with the said submission of the plaintiff's
counsel. The plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that he had become
sick because of the acts of the Chairman, Managing Director and other
two directors of the Company and for that reason he was entitled to
be compensated by them. That is a part of his suit claim besides some
employment related dues like his salary etc. The plaint may not have
been very happily and elaborately drafted by the legal aid counsel but
for that reason the plaint cannot be rejected. Whether the plaintiff
would be able to succeed finally in getting any compensation from the
individual defendants or not on account of mental torture allegedly
caused to him by them cannot be a matter for consideration while
dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. That would
depend upon what evidence the plaintiff would be adducing in
support of this particular claim and he cannot be deprived of his right
of establishing the same by rejecting the plaint at the threshold. It
cannot be said that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action in
favour of the plaintiff for suing defendant nos.2, 4 and 5 for
compensation on account of mental torture allegedly caused to him
by them or that suit for this relief is barred under any law.
9. This application is, therefore, dismissed.
P.K. BHASIN, J.
SEPTEMBER 2, 2013
