IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.402/2017 BETWEEN:
ICICI BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, ICICI BANK TOWERS, NORTH TOWERS, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI-400 051, REP. BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MR. KARTIKEYA PANWAR.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESH S.V., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MR. JOE JACOB S/O MR.JOEY JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 71, REST HOSUE APARTMENT, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. MR. R.B.NIRANTAR GENERAL MANAGER - HRMG, RETAIL BANKING, ICICI BANK LTD., ICICI BANK TOWERS, SOUTH TOWERS, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI-400 051.
3. MR. K. RAMKUMAR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ICICI BANK LTD., ICICI BANK TOWERS, SOUTH TOWERS, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI-400 051.
4. MR. P.S.ROY CHAUDHURI ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER - HRMG, ICICI BANK TOWERS, SOUTH TOWERS, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI-400 051.
5. MR. SACHIN KHANDELWA SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER, ICICI BANK LTD., ICICI BANK TOWERS, SOUTH TOWERS, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI-400 051.
6. MS. SATINDER KAUR DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, ICICI BANK LTD., ICICI BANK TOWERS, SOUTH TOWERS, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI-400 051.
7. MS. SWATI DATYE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, ICICI BANK LTD., ICICI BANK TOWERS, SOUTH TOWERS, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI-400 051.
8. MS. PURBA BHATTACHARYA CHIEF MANAGER, ICICI BANK LTD., ICICI BANK TOWERS, SOUTH TOWERS, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI-400 051.
9. MS. MADHABI PURI BUCH EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ICICI BANK LTD., ICICI BANK TOWERS, SOUTH TOWERS, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI-400 051.
10. MR. V.VAIDYANATHAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ICICI BANK LTD., ICICI BANK TOWERS, SOUTH TOWERS, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI-400 051.
11. MR. SONJOY CHATTERJEE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ICICI BANK LTD., ICICI BANK TOWERS, SOUTH TOWERS, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI-400 051.
12. MR. T.K.SRIRANG GENERAL MANAGER-HRMG, ICICI BANK LTD., ICICI BANK TOWERS, SOUTH TOWERS, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI-400 051.
13. MS. RUCHI SINGH WIFE OF MR.ANUBHAV SINGH, MAJOR IN AGE, C/O. QUANTUM MARKET RESEARCH PVT. LTD., NO.3096, 6TH "A" MAIN ROAD, 13TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 038.
14. MS. KUMUDHAVALLI.R., WIFE OF MR. MITENDAR KUMAR, MAJOR IN AGE, C/O. RELIGARE MACQUARIE WEALTH MANAGEMENT LTD., 3RD FLOOR, THE RESIDENCY, 133/1, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025.
15. MR. ANAND SHIRUR FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, MAJOR IN AGE, MANAGER, GLOBAL PRIVATE CLIENTS, ICICI BANK LTD., 5TH FLOOR, SOBHA PEARL, COMMISSARIAT ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VASANTH V.FERNANDES, ADVOCATE FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 TO R15 D/W) - - -
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC,1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.2.2017 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN OS NO.653/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) OF CPC DISMISSING I.A. NO.2 FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT ETC.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :-
ORDER Sri. Rajesh S.V., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. Vasanth V. Fernandes, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. The Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 15.02.2017, passed on I.A. No. II by which the application preferred by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”, for short) has been rejected.
4. The facts giving raise to filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the respondent No.1 has filed a suit in O.S.No.653/2011 before the XII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, seeking declaration that termination of his service by the petitioner bank as bad in law and sought the relief of reinstatement in service. The petitioner herein filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code, in which a specific plea was taken that the suit was filed seeking enforcement of personal contract. Therefore, the same was barred under Section 14 (b) and 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, for short). However, the trial court by the impugned order has rejected the said application.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trail court while passing the impugned order has not dealt with the specific objection with regard to maintainability of the suit i.e., the suit is barred under Sections 14 (b) and 34 of the Act.
6. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 could not point out from the impugned order that the aforesaid objection has been dealt with by the trial court.
7. I have considered the application made by the learned counsel for petitioner and perused the impugned order.
8. From a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the trial court has not specifically dealt with regard to maintainability of the suit, and the same is barred under Section 14 (b) and 34 of the Act and has not assigned any cogent reasons for holding said maintainability.
9. Therefore, the impugned order dated 15.02.2017 is quashed and set aside. The trial court is directed to decide the question with regard to maintainability of the suit on the ground of same being barred under Section 14 (b) and 34 of the Act, by a speaking order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
10. Needless to state that the parties may take up all contentions before the trial court. It will be open for the trial court to record a finding whether or not the aforesaid question shall be gone into at this stage.
11. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Np/-