Skip to main content

Necessary and Proper Party and Natural Justice

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6774 of 2015
(@ SLP(C) NO. 16650 OF 2012)
Poonam ... Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ... Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Dipak Misra, J.

14. First, it is necessary to understand about the concept
of necessary and proper party. A Four-judge Bench in Udit
Narain Singh Malpaharia v Additional Member Board
12
Page 13
of Revenue, Bihar and another2 has observed thus:-
“7. ....it would be convenient at the outset to
ascertain who are necessary or proper parties in
a proceeding. The law on the subject is well
settled: it is enough if we state the principle. A
necessary party is one without whom no order
can be made effectively; a proper party is one in
whose absence an effective order can be made
but whose presence is necessary for a complete
and final decision on the question involved in this
proceeding. ”
15. In Vijay Kumar Kaul and others v. Union of India
and others3 the court referred to the said decision and has
opined thus:-
“36. Another aspect needs to be highlighted.
Neither before the Tribunal nor before the High
Court, Parveen Kumar and others were arrayed
as parties. There is no dispute over the factum
that they are senior to the appellants and have
been conferred the benefit of promotion to the
higher posts. In their absence, if any direction is
issued for fixation of seniority, that is likely to
jeopardise their interest. When they have not
been impleaded as parties such a relief is difficult
to grant.
37. In this context we may refer with profit to the
decision in Indu Shekhar Singh v. State of U.P.4
wherein it has been held thus: (SCC p. 151, para
56).......

50. We have referred to the said decision in extenso as
there is emphasis on curtailment of legal right. The question to be posed is whether there is curtailment or extinction of a legal right of the appellant. The writ petitioner before
the High Court was trying to establish her right in an
independent manner, that is, she has an independent legal
right. It is extremely difficult to hold that she has an independent
legal right. It was the first allottee who could have
continued in law, if his licence would not have been cancelled.
He was entitled in law to prosecute his cause of action
and restore his legal right. Restoration of the legal right
is pivotal and the prime mover. The eclipse being over, he
has to come back to the same position. His right gets revived
and that revival of the right cannot be dented by the
third party.
51. In view of the aforesaid premises, we do not perceive
any merit in this appeal and, accordingly, the same stands
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
.............................J.
[Dipak Misra]
..........................., J.
[R. Banumathi]
New Delhi
October 29, 2015

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a