CPC Case Brief – National Institute of Mental Health v. Parameshwara (different forums and Section 10)

Spread the love

You can grab notes on other topics of CPC here.

Facts: The disciplinary authority of National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences ordered the removal of the respondent from service for misappropriation of drugs to the extent of Rs. 1,79,668.46 and also directed the respondent to reimburse the appellant( the institute) to the extent of pecuniary loss suffered. Being aggrieved, the respondent herein moved the appellate authority. On failure on the part of the respondent to reimburse the loss, the appellant filed a civil suit in a civil court of Bangalore in 1995 to which the respondent files the written statement. In 1997 the government of Karnataka referred the industrial dispute raised by the respondent to the Labour Court at Bangalore for adjudication to which it held in favour of the respondent and set aside the order of removal. Subsequently appellant filed a writ petition questioning the award of labour court. The HC by an interim order stayed the operation of the order of reinstatement passed by the labour court.  In 2003 respondent filed an application under section 10 of CPC read with section 151. By the said application, the respondent herein sought a stay of the said suit till disposal of the writ petition to which the City Civil Judge dismissed the application made by the respondent. Subsequently, the respondent filed Civil Revision Petition.

Issue: Whether application dated 20.6.2003 filed by the respondent under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC seeking a stay of a civil suit which the appellants filed in the Court of City Civil Judge, Bangalore to seek a decree for Rs. 1,79,668.46 with interest, was maintainable.

Held: The whole subject-matter in both suits has to be identical. Section 10 is preferable to a suit instituted in civil court. Proceedings before labour court cannot be equated with proceedings before the civil court. The scope of the writ petition is entirely different and distinct from a suit. High Court erred in directing trial court not to proceed with drawing up final decree.  Also, inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 cannot be exercised to nullify provisions of Code.

You can grab notes on other topics of CPC here.

 


Spread the love

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *