UNION OF INDIA Vs. SHANTI GURUNG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs Union of India, Ms. Neena Malhotra & Mr. Jogesh Malhotra have instituted this suit pleading:-

(2.) Summons of the suit and notice of the application for interim relief were issued and vide ex parte order dated 14th March, 2012 the defendants were restrained from pursing the complaint/claim titled Ms. Shanti Gurung Vs. Ms. Neena & Jogesh Malhotra or from relying upon the orders dated 22nd November, 2011 and 22nd February, 2012 passed by the Magistrate of the Southern District Court, New York to get a final judgment or proceed to enforce the same.

(3.) These voluminous applications have been filed by the defendant no.2 M/s. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP for deletion of the defendant no.2 from the array of parties and/or rejection of the suit against the defendant no.2 and for vacation of the interim order in so far as against the defendant no.2. Though the applications deal with the merits of the claim of the plaintiffs in this suit but need is not felt to elaborate thereon in as much as on 11th April, 2013 when these applications came up for consideration, the senior counsel for the defendant no.2 argued, a) that the proceedings in the United States District Court qua which the suit has been filed are at the instance of the defendant no.1; b) the monetary relief awarded in the said proceedings is also in favour of the defendant no.1 and against the plaintiffs no.2&3 herein, together with costs; c) that the monetary relief so decreed, together with costs is recoverable by the defendant no.1 and out of which, as per law and practice prevalent in that jurisdiction, the defendant no.2 would be entitled to the amount towards costs/legal fees even though has acted pro bono in the said proceedings for the defendant no.1; d) that the entire basis on which the defendant no.2 has been impleaded in this suit is that it has an independent financial/pecuniary interest in the decree of the New York Court; e) however the decree of the New York Court enures only to the benefit of the defendant no.1 and can only be executed by her and the decree cannot be executed independently by the defendant no.2 and the defendant no.2 cannot execute independently even that part of the decree which awards legal fees and expenses to the defendant no.1; f) that as per the engagement letter of the defendant no.2, only when the defendant no.1 successfully executes the decree in her favour, that part of the decree which awards her legal fees and expenses will stand assigned to the defendant no.2 and the assignment does not allow the defendant no.2 to independently execute the decree (or any part of it) which is in favour of the defendant no.1 alone.