2005 (10) TMI 612 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Directs Plaintiff to Amend Memo, Denies Deletion of Defendants 3 and 4, British Airways Plc to be Unified.

Anjum Nath Versus British Airways Plc and Ors.

The court partially allowed the application. It denied the request to delete defendant Nos. 3 and 4, finding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action ... - Issues Involved:1. Deletion/striking out the names of defendant Nos. 3 and 4.2. Amendment to the cause title of the suit.3. Whether defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are necessary parties.4. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action against defendant Nos. 3 and 4.5. Whether British Airways Plc can be sued as two distinct entities based on different addresses.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion/striking out the names of defendant Nos. 3 and 4:The defendants No. 1 and 2, British Airways Plc, sought the deletion of Mr. Andy Stern and Mr. Neil Robertson (defendant Nos. 3 and 4) from the suit. They contended that these individuals were merely executives of British Airways Plc and were not personally liable for the plaintiff's claims. The application was supported by an affidavit from Mr. Andy Stern, General Manager, South Asia of British Airways Plc.2. Amendment to the cause title of the suit:The applicant sought an amendment to the cause title of the suit, arguing that British Airways Plc, having addresses at DLF Plaza Tower, Gurgaon, and Dr. Gopal Das Bhawan, New Delhi, is the same entity with different addresses. The court agreed that British Airways Plc is a single legal entity and should not be sued as two distinct entities based on different addresses.3. Whether defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are necessary parties:The plaintiff opposed the application, asserting that there were specific allegations against defendant Nos. 3 and 4, who were responsible for illegal, wrongful, and arbitrary acts on behalf of British Airways Plc. The plaintiff argued that these defendants were necessary parties to the suit and their deletion could only be decided after trial. The court noted that the plaintiff had made specific averments against defendant Nos. 3 and 4, including their involvement in the alleged wrongful treatment and denial of legitimate dues.4. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action against defendant Nos. 3 and 4:The court emphasized that the rejection of a plaint is a serious matter and should not be ordered cursorily. It reiterated the legal proposition that to decide under Order VII Rule 11, the averments in the plaint alone should be considered. The court found that the plaint disclosed a cause of action against defendant Nos. 3 and 4, citing specific averments in the plaint that implicated them in the alleged wrongful actions. The court concluded that these defendants were necessary parties and their presence was required to effectively adjudicate the issues involved in the suit.5. Whether British Airways Plc can be sued as two distinct entities based on different addresses:The court held that a legal entity having different addresses does not become different entities. It directed the plaintiff to amend the memo of parties to show British Airways Plc as a single entity with different addresses. Consequently, the plaintiff was instructed to amend the memo of parties to reflect British Airways Plc as defendant No. 1 with its different addresses and to re-number defendant Nos. 3 and 4 as defendants No. 2 and 3.Conclusion:The application was partly allowed. The court dismissed the plea to delete defendant Nos. 3 and 4, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action against them and they were necessary parties. However, the court directed the plaintiff to amend the memo of parties to show British Airways Plc as a single entity with different addresses. The amended memo of parties was to be filed within two weeks.