BINU ANAND KHANNA Vs. RATAN TATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Order, I shall dispose of the application filed by defendant no. 7 under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC seeking deletion of the names of defendants no. 1 to 4 and 6, as well as under Order VI Rule 16 for striking off pleadings made against these defendants. Before proceeding on the merits of this application, it is pertinent to give a brief description of the parties in this suit.

(2.) The plaintiff, Smt. Binu Anand Khanna, was an erstwhile employee of defendant no. 7, The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., a company under the Tata Group of Companies, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office in Bombay. Defendant no. 7 is stated to be engaged in the business of running a chain of reputed hotels under the name and style of "Taj". Defendant no. 8, The Taj Trade and Transport Co. Ltd., is stated to be a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant no. 7. Defendant no. 8 is also stated to own and operate a reputed chain of exclusive variety stores known as "Khazana". Defendants no. 1 to 6 are stated to be the officers of defendants no. 7 and 8. For the sake of brevity, a table of the memo of parties is reproduced as hereunder. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_2714_ILRDLH23_2013_1.html</FRM>

(3.) The case of the plaintiff is that her employment with Defendant nos. 7 and 8 was wrongfully and arbitrarily terminated. She claims to have joined the service of Defendant no. 7 on October 23, 1980, as a receptionist on a temporary basis. Thereafter, vide letter dated July 14, 1981, she was confirmed and was designated as Confidential Secretary in the then Managing Director's office at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi. She claims that she was not only involved with the offices of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Managing Director, but was also associated with the exclusive stores known as "Khazana", "The Collection", which are owned and operated by defendant no. 8. And that in or around July-August, 1997, the defendant no. 7 company was going through a tumultuous time, on account of wide ranging changes in the management structure brought about by the takeover of the reins by defendant no. 1, who allegedly wanted to have his own set of officers in charge of the affairs of defendants no. 7 and 8.