LexTARUN CHUGH, CEO AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. versus SAROJ KUMAR PANDA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 981 : 2024 INSC 821 Tarun Chugh, CEO and Managing Director, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. v. Saroj Kumar Panda (Civil Appeal No. 12135 of 2024) 23 September 2024 [J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal,* JJ.] 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. Headnotes† 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 * Author 982 [2024] 9 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports 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] List of Keywords Ex-Parte Award; Termination; Reinstate; Impleadment of Proper Parties; Privity of Contract; Separate legal entity. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12135 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2021 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in WP(C) No. 8877 of 2020 Appearances for Parties Amol Chitale, Mrs. Shweta Singh Parihar, Sartak Sharma, Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Advs. for the Appellant. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv., Karunakar Mahalik, B. Venkatraman, Debasish Mishra, Ms. Sanya Minhas, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The impugned order1 was passed by the High Court2 in Writ Petition3 1 Dated 01.03.2021 2 High Court of Orissa, Cuttack 3 W.P.(C)No.8877 of 2020 [2024] 9 S.C.R. 983 Tarun Chugh, CEO and Managing Director, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. v. Saroj Kumar Panda 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 annexed to the S.L.P. paper book is shown as ‘Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd.’ herein after referred to as ‘the Company’, which is different from the original Petitioner. This change was made without any order of the Court, hence, cannot be admitted. 4. Briefly, the facts as available on record are that a statement of claim was filed by the Respondent No.1 before the Tribunal impugning his termination vide order dated 25.07.2017. Vid
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.