Tarun Chugh, CEO and Managing Director, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. vs Saroj Kumar Panda

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

23 September 2024

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 12135 of 2024

Result

Allowed

Bench

J.K. Maheshwari, Rajesh Bindal

Citation

[2024] 9 S.C.R. 981 : 2024 INSC 821

Issue for consideration

Respondent No.1 filed a statement of claim before the Tribunal impugning his termination vide order dated 25.07.2017 – Tribunal passed ex-parte award dated 05.02.2019, the termination of the Respondent No.1 was held to be bad – Respondent No.1 was directed to be reinstated with back-wages and other service benefits – The aforesaid ex-parte Award was challenged by all the parties impleaded by the Respondent No.1 before the Tribunal, namely, the officers in person, without joining the company-employer as a party – The writ petition filed by the writ petitioners/appellants before the High Court, impugning the ex-parte Award of the Tribunal, was dismissed vide order impugned dated 01.03.2021 – Appellant approached the Supreme Court and filed an appeal against the order dated 01/03/2024 passed by the High Court – SC while setting aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and the Award of the Tribunal allowed the appeal. Whether proper impleadment of parties in any proceedings is sine qua non in the matter coming before the court.

Headnote

Practice and Procedure – Impleadment – Proper impleadment of parties in any proceedings is sine qua non in any matter coming before court – A corporate has a separate legal entity as compared to an individual or an officer of the company: Held: It needs to be appreciated that proper impleadment of parties in any proceedings is sine qua non in any matter coming before the court. However, what is noticed is that it has become a casualty in the process. Due care is not taken at the time of initiation of any proceedings before any forum to ensure that proper parties are impleaded. It needs to be appreciated that a corporate has a separate legal entity as compared to an individual or an officer of the company. There can be privity of contract between the corporate and any other individual and that contract or communication may have been signed by any officer on its behalf as an authorized signatory. It does not mean that the officer signing the communication or the agreement or the executive head of the company becomes individually liable for any claim against the company except the cases where any specific claim is made in that regard. Any order or decree or award passed by the Court, in case proper parties are not impleaded, becomes inexecutable. [Paras 10.1 and 10.2]

Order Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The impugned order1 was passed by the High Court2 in Writ Petition3 Dated 01.03.2021 High Court of Orissa, Cuttack W.P.(C)No.8877 of 2020 filed by Tarun Chugh,4 Ruben Selvadoray5 and Prabir Ranjan Prusty6 whereby the ex parte Award7 of the Tribunal8 was upheld. 3. Initially the Special Leave Petition was filed by one of the writ petitioners, Tarun Chugh, however, while deleting the proforma Respondent Nos.2 and 3 from the array of the parties, as allowed vide order dated 30.06.2021, the name of the Petitioner in the Amended Cause Title annex

View Subscription Plans →