2002 (11) TMI 814 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of names of defendant Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8 from the plaint and proceedings.
2. Allegations of sexual harassment by defendant No. 2.
3. Responsibility and authority of defendant Nos. 5 to 8 to act on the plaintiff's complaints.
4. Applicability of Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
5. Suppression of material facts by the plaintiff.
6. The plaintiff's conduct and its impact on the proceedings.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Names of Defendant Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8:
The Chamber Summons sought to have the names of defendant Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8 deleted from the plaint and proceedings. The court decided to dismiss the Chamber Summons despite agreeing with the submissions of the learned counsel for defendant Nos. 5 to 8 on merits. The decision was based on the limited scope of Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. Allegations of Sexual Harassment by Defendant No. 2:
The plaintiff's main grievance was against defendant No. 2 regarding their personal relationship, which had no connection with defendant No. 1 or defendant No. 8. The plaintiff alleged that from March 1997, defendant No. 2's conduct became nasty and unprofessional. From May 1999, defendant Nos. 3 and 4, upon instructions from defendant No. 2, continuously harassed her. The plaintiff detailed various instances of harassment, including verbal abuse, ridicule, unwarranted sexual advances, and withholding salary.

3. Responsibility and Authority of Defendant Nos. 5 to 8:
The plaintiff reported the conduct of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 to defendant Nos. 5, 6, and 7, who were part of the senior management of defendant No. 8. The plaintiff alleged that defendant Nos. 5 to 8 did not prevent the ongoing harassment despite having the authority and power to do so. The plaintiff further stated that defendant Nos. 5 to 8 ratified the harassment by not taking disciplinary action against defendant Nos. 2, 3, and 4.

4. Applicability of Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
The court discussed the applicability of Order 1, Rule 10(2), which allows the court to strike out the name of any party improperly joined. The court noted that if a particular defendant has no connection with the cause of action pleaded against the other defendants, they are entitled to have their name struck out. However, the court must presume that the facts stated in the plaint are correct and act with great circumspection and restraint while considering such an application.

5. Suppression of Material Facts by the Plaintiff:
The court noted that the plaintiff had suppressed material information, such as the transcript of certain telephonic conversations/messages left by the plaintiff on defendant No. 2's recording machine. The court observed that suppression of material facts is not relevant while deciding an application under Order 1, Rule 10(2). It may disentitle the plaintiff to interim reliefs or entail the dismissal of the suit but does not entitle defendant Nos. 5 to 8 to succeed in their Chamber Summons.

6. The Plaintiff's Conduct and Its Impact on the Proceedings:
The court observed that the plaintiff's conduct, as evidenced by the transcripts, indicated an attempt to disrupt and destroy the functioning of defendant Nos. 1 and 8 and to harass their officers to settle her personal dispute with defendant No. 2. The court found that defendant Nos. 5 to 8 had been unnecessarily dragged into the litigation and that the plaint appeared to be a case of clever drafting to bring the case within the directions of the Supreme Court in Vishaka's case. However, the court emphasized that the remedy for defendant Nos. 5 to 8 lies in having the suit dismissed after an adjudication on merits.

Conclusion:
The Chamber Summons were dismissed, and the court emphasized that the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to go to trial. The court noted that while the suit appeared to be a misuse of the law, the remedy for defendant Nos. 5 to 8 was to have the suit dismissed after a trial on merits. The court also highlighted the importance of an activist judge in addressing irresponsible lawsuits and the potential for dismissing a suit under Order X of the Civil Procedure Code if it does not disclose a clear right to sue.