CLARINDA DSOUZA Vs. MCCANN ERICKSON INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above chamber summons have been taken out by defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7 and 8 respectively to have their names deleted from the plaint and proceedings of the above suit. It is not without hesitation that I have decided to dismiss the chamber summons. The decision is notwithstanding my inability to disagree with the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of defendant Nos. 5 to 8 on merits. It is based entirely on the limited scope of Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(2.) THE plaintiff was an employee of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 3 is the Senior Vice President and General Manager of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 4 is the President and Chief Operating Officer of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 is a subsidiary of defendant No. 8. Defendant No. 8 holds over 90% shares in defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 5 is the Executive Vice President Worldwide, Regional Director-Asia Pacific of defendant No. 8. Defendant No. 6 is the Worldwide Human Resource Director of defendant No. 8. Defendant No. 7 is the Vice Chairman and Chief Creative Officer and Director Global Brands as Manager of defendant No. 8.

(3.) THE plaintiffs main grievance is, against defendant No. 2 in respect of their personal relationship which had nothing to do with either defendant No. 1 or defendant No. 8 or any of the other defendants. This is not disputed. The plaintiffs case is that she developed an intimate relationship with defendant No. 2 who pledged a life-time commitment to her. Based on certain representations, defendant No. 2 induced her to join defendant No. 1. The plaintiff was employed as the Vice President Creative Director, Bombay of defendant No. 1 on 19th July, 1996. From the plaint, documents and correspondence on record it is clear that the plaintiff is outraged with and has an enormous grievance against defendant No. 2 for cheating her by not carrying the relationship further. I should have thought this to be purely a personal matter between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2. I will shortly set out the plaintiffs case against the remaining defendants and especially defendant Nos. 5 to 8 for it is that which is relevant for deciding the present chamber summons.