Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs Kalyani Tech Park… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs Kalyani Tech Park… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether, in the absence of a formal application, a person who is already a party eo nomine can be disarrayed (struck off) by a Court/Tribunal that, after examining the material on record, opines that he is neither a necessary nor a proper party.

Court's answer

A formal separate application is not a precondition for a Court/Tribunal to disarray (delete) a person who is already a party eo nomine, once the Court/Tribunal after examining the material on record forms a considered opinion that he is neither a necessary nor a proper party.

Ratio / Principle

A respondent normally cannot object to a person being disarrayed from the cause title in the absence of demonstrable prejudice likely to happen by such disarraignment; no such prejudice was established before the Court even prima facie.

Key takeaways

It is left open to the petitioner to take up the contention as to proper and necessary party subsequently, if at all admissible, based upon the pleadings and substance of the lis.obiter¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-CON) No. 4696 of 2025, High Court of Karnataka (DB: Krishna S Dixit J., author, with Ramachandra D. Huddar J.; decided 24.03.2025): Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. invoked Article 227 to set aside the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Principal Bench, Bengaluru) order dated 21.12.2024 in C.C.No.63/2021 (Annexure-A), which allowed Respondent No.3's unnumbered I.A. under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 CPC and thereby disarrayed Opposite Party No.2 suo motu although the application sought deletion only of Opposite Party No.3, in light of J.J. Lal Pvt Ltd vs. M.R. Murali (AIR 2002 SC 1061). The Bench declined to subscribe to the argument that an eo nomine party cannot be disarrayed absent an application: holding (i) no formal separate application is a precondition where the tribunal, on the record, finds the person neither necessary nor proper party, following the long-standing position in Razia Begum vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum (AIR 1958 SC 886); and (ii) a respondent cannot ordinarily object to such disarrayment absent demonstrable prejudice, none being established even prima facie. The writ petition was rejected as devoid of merits, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to contest necessity/propriety later on the pleadings and substance of the lis.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12238-DB WP No. 4696 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 4696 OF 2025 (GM-CON)

BETWEEN:

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 27, BKC, C27, G BLOCK, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI 400 051. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND SENIOR MANAGER (LEGAL) MR RATNAVEER SINGH.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PRADEEP NAYAK.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALYANI TECH PARK PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 165/2, KRISHNARAJU LAYOUT, DORAISANPALYA, BANGALORE 560 076. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. A MOHAN RAJU, DIRECTOR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O A ANANTHAR RAJU.

STOCK HOLDING DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE AT: SHCIL HOUSE, PLOT NO. P-51, T.T.C. INDUSTRIAL AREA, MIDC, MAHAPE, NAVI MUMBAI 470 710. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12238-DB WP No. 4696 of 2025

STOCK HOLDING CORPORATION OF INDIAN LIMITED 301, CENTRE POINT, DR BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR ROAD, PAREL, MUMBAI – 400 012. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

…RESPONDENTS

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.12.2024 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH) ALLOWING THE I.A (UNNUMBERED) FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO-3 UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CADRE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s order dated 21.12.2024 in C.C.No.63/2021 whereby Opposite Party No.2 has been disarrayed in light of Apex Court decision in J.J.LAL PVT LTD vs. M.R.MURALI , AIR 2002 SC 1061 which reiterates

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12238-DB WP No. 4696 of 2025

the long standing legal position vide RAZIA BEGUM vs.

SAHEBZADI ANWAR BEGUM , AIR 1958 SC 886. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the application was filed only for deletion of Opposite Party No.3 whereas, the Tribunal suo moto has disarrayed Opposite Party No.2 which is impermissible.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the Petition Papers, we do not subscribe to the argument advanced at the Bar that in the absence of an application, a person who is a party eo nomine cannot be disarrayed when Court/Tribunal after examining the material on record forms a considered opinion that he is neither necessary nor proper party in the light of RAZIA BEGUM supra . For that, there need not be a formal separate application as a precondition for undertaking such exercise.

The Cause Title ordinarily belongs to the

dominant litis and thereafter to the court. The respondent normally cannot raise objection to disarray certain person

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12238-DB WP No. 4696 of 2025

from the Cause Title in the absence of demonstrable prejudice likely to happen by such disarraignment. That has not been established before us, even prima facie.

In the above circumstances, petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be and accordingly rejected.

However, it is open to the petitioner to take up the contention as to proper & necessary party, if at all it is admissible based upon the pleadings and substance of lis .

Registry to send a copy of this order to the respondent by Speed Post.

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

Sd/(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

cbc

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21