D P VERMA Vs. AIR SAHARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, who worked in Indian Airlines as senior Commander from 1972 to July, 1994 and thereafter worked for Jet Airways from August, 1994 to 6th October, 1995 and joined the defendants' organisation i.e. Air Sahara on 6th October, 1995, has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.40 lakhs.

(2.) The plaintiff has founded his claim that under the policy of the defendant, he was entitled for ownership of residential accommodation costing around Rs.36 lakhs, which have been wrongfully denied by the defendants in the suit. On an application filed by the plaintiff, the plaint of the plaintiff was permitted to be amended and the amended plaint was filed in this Court on 28th October, 2002. By way of amendment, he added defendant No.4 to the plaint as well as made detailed allegations against all the defendants alleging conspiracy and collusion between the defendants to frustrate the legitimate and rightful claim of the plaintiff. According to the case pleaded by the plaintiff in the amended plaint, the plaintiff had completed three years of service on 8th October, 1998 and thereby rendered himself eligible for ownership of the residential accommodation costing Rs.36 lakhs but to his utter surprise, the defendants not only ill treated the plaintiff but also failed to act on the repeated representations of the plaintiff. The plaintiff for this purpose had relied upon para 3 of the scheme of the defendants, which is attached to the plaint as Annexure P-1. It is specifically averred in the plaint that defendants vide their letter dated 15th February, 2000 had conceded the request of the plaintiff and his resignation was accepted with effect from 16th November, 2000. Specific and definite averments have been made against the defendants particularly defendant No.4, who had issued the letter dated 18th November, 1995 and which now according to other defendants was issued without authority and as such is not binding. In the written statement filed by these defendants earlier to the un-amended plaint where defendant No.4 was not a party issuance and contents of this letter were denied. According to the plaintiff these defendants have colluded and conspired together and defrauded the plaintiff and have denied the lawful authority of the defendant No.4 just to deny the legitimate claim of the plaintiff earlier departmentally and now before the Court.

(3.) The defendants have now filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2)(C) praying that names of defendants 2 to 4 be struck off from the array of defendants and also strike out the name of Shri Subroto Roy, Chairman of defendant No.1 as representing defendant No.1 company, which is now to be represented by Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Principal Officer and Authorised Representative of defendant No.1. The whole emphasis of the application is that there is no liability jointly and/or severally of the defendants and there is no personal liability as well and the relief which the plaintiff can claim is available to him against defendant No.1 alone. Reference has also been made to the order of the High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.316/2004 dated 9th August, 2004 wherein the Court held that no case under Section 420 IPC was made out against the defendants of which the learned Magistrate could take cognizance. But the applicants have themselves stated in para 12 of the application that such findings would not be binding on the civil Court and defendant No.1 is and ought to be sued through the authorised representative of the company.