RAJENDRA SETHIA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff sued Punjab National Bank for directing it to give details about its settlement with liquidators of pff's. company; for injunction restraining Deft. from enforcing settlement and for not implementing the settlement without his concurrence as he was guarantor. Pff. made applications for amendment of plaint and also for addition of certain parties (U.O.I., Reserve Bank & some of his English Companies). Deft. also filed an application contending that pff. had no locus standi to file the suit and that the Delhi Courts had no jurisdiction. Pff. wanted to add U.O.I, and RBI as parties as Deft. had sought their permission to enter into settlement with the Liquidator Trustees of Jokai Tea Co. (L.) whose shares had been pledged with Deft. The contention of the Deft. was that pff. had been adjudged as Bankrupt by English Courts and he could not sue in India. Pff's plea was that lie was never given opportunity to defend himself in English Courts as at relevant time he was in Jail in India. About making UOI & RBI parties, plea of pff. was that Finance Minister had stated in Parliament that report of RBI would be placed on the table of the house which was never done]. After detailing above, Judgment is :-

(2.) (b) This (question of making UOI or RBI parties) is entirely a new cause of action unconnected with the suit. If any record is, however, sought, from either U.O.I, or R.B.I. it can be summoned during the course of trial, if permissible in law. The impugned transaction is a commercial transaction, which the pff. seeks to challenge in the suit. No questions of "public interest" or "banking policy" are involved which I have to consider in the suit. Except for the U.O.I, or R.B.I, no other party sought to be added can be least interested in these questions. I will not allow widening of the base of the suit by adding U.O.I, or R.B I., otherwise there is going to be misjoinder of causes of action and parties and the suit bad for multifariousness. Moreover service of notice u/S 80, Civil Procedure Code . on the U.O.I, is mandatory and the application, I.A. 5403/90, does not specify any ground for me to exercise discretion under sub-sec. (2) of 80. No urgent or immediate relief is sought against the Central Govt. This applition is, therefore, to be dismissed. Prayer of the pff. to add U.O.I, and R.B.I. as parties to the suit is declined.

(3.) There is no cause of action against other defendants sought to be added arising in India. None of these defendants carries on business in Delhi, or for, that matter, any place in India. No leave of the court has been obtained to sue them in these proceedings as required u/S. 20(b) of the Civil Procedure Code . Admittedly, whole of the transaction sought to be challenged took place outside India. English courts are seized of the matter to which jurisdiction all the parties have submitted. Addition of these defendants in these proceedings wi!l cause them a great deal of harassment, hardship and unnecessary expense. Even in the application no grounds have been given as to why these defendants are sought to be added parties, though, in the proposed amendments, some indication is discernible. I see no ground in law or even in equity to add them as parties in this suit. This is apart from the submission of Mr. Khanna that this court lacks inherent and territorial jurisdiction to try this suit as well. I, therefore, decline the request of the pff. to add any one of these defendants as party to the suit.